BACKGROUND:Ventricular fibrillation (VF) waveform properties have been shown to predict defibrillation success and outcomes among patients treated with immediate defibrillation. We postulated that a waveform analysis algorithm could be used to identify VF unlikely to respond to immediate defibrillation, allowing selective initial treatment with cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an effort to improve overall survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in 2 urban emergency medical services systems were treated with automated external defibrillators using either a VF waveform analysis algorithm or the standard shock-first protocol. The VF waveform analysis used a predefined threshold value below which return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was unlikely with immediate defibrillation, allowing selective treatment with a 2-minute interval of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before initial defibrillation. The primary end point was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary end points included ROSC, sustained ROSC, and survival to hospital admission. Of 6738 patients enrolled, 987 patients with VF of primary cardiac origin were included in the primary analysis. No immediate or long-term survival benefit was noted for either treatment algorithm (ROSC, 42.5% versus 41.2%, P=0.70; sustained ROSC, 32.4% versus 33.4%, P=0.79; survival to admission, 34.1% versus 36.4%, P=0.46; survival to hospital discharge, 15.6% versus 17.2%, P=0.55, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a waveform analysis algorithm to guide the initial treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients presenting in VF did not improve overall survival compared with a standard shock-first protocol. Further study is recommended to examine the role of waveform analysis for the guided management of VF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Ventricular fibrillation (VF) waveform properties have been shown to predict defibrillation success and outcomes among patients treated with immediate defibrillation. We postulated that a waveform analysis algorithm could be used to identify VF unlikely to respond to immediate defibrillation, allowing selective initial treatment with cardiopulmonary resuscitation in an effort to improve overall survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study, out-of-hospital cardiac arrestpatients in 2 urban emergency medical services systems were treated with automated external defibrillators using either a VF waveform analysis algorithm or the standard shock-first protocol. The VF waveform analysis used a predefined threshold value below which return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was unlikely with immediate defibrillation, allowing selective treatment with a 2-minute interval of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before initial defibrillation. The primary end point was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary end points included ROSC, sustained ROSC, and survival to hospital admission. Of 6738 patients enrolled, 987 patients with VF of primary cardiac origin were included in the primary analysis. No immediate or long-term survival benefit was noted for either treatment algorithm (ROSC, 42.5% versus 41.2%, P=0.70; sustained ROSC, 32.4% versus 33.4%, P=0.79; survival to admission, 34.1% versus 36.4%, P=0.46; survival to hospital discharge, 15.6% versus 17.2%, P=0.55, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a waveform analysis algorithm to guide the initial treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrestpatients presenting in VF did not improve overall survival compared with a standard shock-first protocol. Further study is recommended to examine the role of waveform analysis for the guided management of VF.
Authors: David Filgueiras-Rama; Conrado J Calvo; Óscar Salvador-Montañés; Rosalía Cádenas; Jose Ruiz-Cantador; Eduardo Armada; Juan Ramón Rey; J L Merino; Rafael Peinado; Nicasio Pérez-Castellano; Julián Pérez-Villacastín; Jorge G Quintanilla; Santiago Jiménez; Francisco Castells; Francisco J Chorro; J L López-Sendón; Omer Berenfeld; José Jalife; Esteban López de Sá; José Millet Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Michiel Hulleman; David D Salcido; James J Menegazzi; Patrick C Souverein; Hanno L Tan; Marieke T Blom; Rudolph W Koster Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: J Thannhauser; J Nas; R A Waalewijn; N van Royen; J L Bonnes; M A Brouwer; M J de Boer Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 2.854
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Katherine M Berg; Lars W Andersen; Bernd W Böttiger; Sofia Cacciola; Clifton W Callaway; Keith Couper; Tobias Cronberg; Sonia D'Arrigo; Charles D Deakin; Michael W Donnino; Ian R Drennan; Asger Granfeldt; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Mathias J Holmberg; Cindy H Hsu; Marlijn Kamps; Szymon Musiol; Kevin J Nation; Robert W Neumar; Tonia Nicholson; Brian J O'Neil; Quentin Otto; Edison Ferreira de Paiva; Michael J A Parr; Joshua C Reynolds; Claudio Sandroni; Barnaby R Scholefield; Markus B Skrifvars; Tzong-Luen Wang; Wolfgang A Wetsch; Joyce Yeung; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Michelle Welsford; Mary Fran Hazinski; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jos Thannhauser; Joris Nas; Priya Vart; Joep L R M Smeets; Menko-Jan de Boer; Niels van Royen; Judith L Bonnes; Marc A Brouwer Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-04-02
Authors: U Ayala; U Irusta; J Ruiz; T Eftestøl; J Kramer-Johansen; F Alonso-Atienza; E Alonso; D González-Otero Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Salvatore Aiello; Michelle Perez; Chad Cogan; Alvin Baetiong; Steven A Miller; Jeejabai Radhakrishnan; Christopher L Kaufman; Raúl J Gazmuri Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 5.501