OBJECTIVES: National leaders have suggested that patients with an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may benefit from transport to specialized hospitals. We sought to assess the survival of OOHCA patients by transport distance and hospital proximity. METHODS: Prospective, cohort study of OOHCA patients in 11 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) sites across North America. Transport distance and hospital proximity was calculated using weighted centroid of census tract location by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Patients were stratified into quartiles based on transport distance to the receiving hospital calculated via GIS. Descriptive statistics were used to describe characteristics by transport distance and to compare proximity to other hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of transport distance on survival. RESULTS: 26,628 patients were identified, 7540 (28%) were transported by EMS and included in the final analysis. The median transport time was 6.3 min (IQR 5.4); the median transport distance being 2.4 miles (3.9 km). Most patients were taken to the closest hospital (71.7%; N=5412). However, unadjusted survival to discharge was lower for those taken to the closest compared to further hospitals (12.1% vs. 16.5%) despite similar patient characteristics. Transport distance was not associated with survival on logistic analysis (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Survival to discharge was higher in OOHCA patients taken to hospitals located further than the closest hospital while transport distance was not associated with survival. This suggests that longer transport distance/time might not adversely affect outcome. Further studies are needed to inform policy decisions regarding best destination post-cardiac arrest. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: National leaders have suggested that patients with an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may benefit from transport to specialized hospitals. We sought to assess the survival of OOHCA patients by transport distance and hospital proximity. METHODS: Prospective, cohort study of OOHCA patients in 11 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) sites across North America. Transport distance and hospital proximity was calculated using weighted centroid of census tract location by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Patients were stratified into quartiles based on transport distance to the receiving hospital calculated via GIS. Descriptive statistics were used to describe characteristics by transport distance and to compare proximity to other hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of transport distance on survival. RESULTS: 26,628 patients were identified, 7540 (28%) were transported by EMS and included in the final analysis. The median transport time was 6.3 min (IQR 5.4); the median transport distance being 2.4 miles (3.9 km). Most patients were taken to the closest hospital (71.7%; N=5412). However, unadjusted survival to discharge was lower for those taken to the closest compared to further hospitals (12.1% vs. 16.5%) despite similar patient characteristics. Transport distance was not associated with survival on logistic analysis (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: Survival to discharge was higher in OOHCA patients taken to hospitals located further than the closest hospital while transport distance was not associated with survival. This suggests that longer transport distance/time might not adversely affect outcome. Further studies are needed to inform policy decisions regarding best destination post-cardiac arrest. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: Carsi A Polanczyk; Anthereca Lane; Michelle Coburn; Edward F Philbin; G William Dec; Thomas G DiSalvo Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Daniel W Spaite; Ben J Bobrow; Tyler F Vadeboncoeur; Vatsal Chikani; Lani Clark; Terry Mullins; Arthur B Sanders Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: R O Cummins; D A Chamberlain; N S Abramson; M Allen; P J Baskett; L Becker; L Bossaert; H H Delooz; W F Dick; M S Eisenberg Journal: Circulation Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Demetrios Demetriades; Matthew Martin; Ali Salim; Peter Rhee; Carlos Brown; Jay Doucet; Linda Chan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Michael J Kellum; Kevin W Kennedy; Richard Barney; Franz A Keilhauer; Michael Bellino; Mathias Zuercher; Gordon A Ewy Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2008-03-28 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Daniel P Davis; Roger Fisher; Steven Aguilar; Marcelyn Metz; Ginger Ochs; Lana McCallum-Brown; Prasanthi Ramanujam; Colleen Buono; Gary M Vilke; Theodore C Chan; James V Dunford Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Michael T Cudnik; Comilla Sasson; Thomas D Rea; Michael R Sayre; Jianying Zhang; Bentley J Bobrow; Daniel W Spaite; Bryan McNally; Kurt Denninghoff; Uwe Stolz Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-02-19 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Elisabeth Dowling Root; Louis Gonzales; David E Persse; Paul R Hinchey; Bryan McNally; Comilla Sasson Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Theresa M Olasveengen; Mary E Mancini; Gavin D Perkins; Suzanne Avis; Steven Brooks; Maaret Castrén; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Keith Couper; Raffo Escalante; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Kevin K C Hung; Peter Kudenchuk; Swee Han Lim; Chika Nishiyama; Giuseppe Ristagno; Federico Semeraro; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Christian Vaillancourt; Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Marek Kozinski; Krzysztof Pstragowski; Julia Maria Kubica; Tomasz Fabiszak; Michal Kasprzak; Blazej Kuffel; Przemyslaw Paciorek; Eliano Pio Navarese; Grzegorz Grzesk; Jacek Kubica Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Mun Ju Kang; Tae Rim Lee; Tae Gun Shin; Min Seob Sim; Ik Joon Jo; Keun Jeong Song; Yeon Kwon Jeong Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 2.153