Thomas Rea1, David Prince2, Laurie Morrison3, Clifton Callaway4, Tom Aufderheide5, Mohamed Daya6, Ian Stiell7, Jim Christenson8, Judy Powell2, Craig Warden6, Lois van Ottingham2, Peter Kudenchuk9, Myron Weisfeldt10. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: rea123@u.washington.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. University of Toronto and St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 10. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Effectiveness of a resuscitation strategy may vary across communities. We hypothesize that a strategy that prioritizes initial emergency medical services (EMS) rhythm analysis (analyze early) will be associated with survival advantage among EMS systems with lower baseline (pretrial) ventricular fibrillation survival, whereas a strategy that prioritizes initial EMS cardiopulmonary resuscitation (analyze late) will be associated with survival advantage among systems with higher ventricular fibrillation baseline survival. METHODS: We conducted a secondary, post hoc study of a randomized trial of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Subjects were stratified according to randomization status (analyze early versus analyze late) and EMS agency baseline ventricular fibrillation survival. We used a mixed-effects model to determine whether the association between favorable functional survival to hospital discharge and trial intervention (analyze late versus analyze early) differed according to EMS agency baseline ventricular fibrillation survival (<20% or >20%). RESULTS: Characteristics were similar among patients randomized to analyze early (n=4,964) versus analyze late (n=4,426). For EMS agencies with baseline ventricular fibrillation survival less than 20%, analyze late compared with analyze early was associated with a lower likelihood of favorable functional survival (3.8% versus 5.5%; odds ratio [OR]=0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.90]). Conversely, among agencies with a ventricular fibrillation survival greater than 20%, analyze late compared with analyze early was associated with higher likelihood of favorable functional survival (7.5% versus 6.1%; OR=1.22 [95% CI 0.98, 1.52]). In the multivariable-adjusted model, for every 10% increase in baseline ventricular fibrillation survival, analyze late versus analyze early was associated with a 34% increase in odds of favorable functional survival (OR=1.34 [95% CI 1.07 to 1.66]). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that system-level characteristics may influence resuscitation outcomes.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Effectiveness of a resuscitation strategy may vary across communities. We hypothesize that a strategy that prioritizes initial emergency medical services (EMS) rhythm analysis (analyze early) will be associated with survival advantage among EMS systems with lower baseline (pretrial) ventricular fibrillation survival, whereas a strategy that prioritizes initial EMS cardiopulmonary resuscitation (analyze late) will be associated with survival advantage among systems with higher ventricular fibrillation baseline survival. METHODS: We conducted a secondary, post hoc study of a randomized trial of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Subjects were stratified according to randomization status (analyze early versus analyze late) and EMS agency baseline ventricular fibrillation survival. We used a mixed-effects model to determine whether the association between favorable functional survival to hospital discharge and trial intervention (analyze late versus analyze early) differed according to EMS agency baseline ventricular fibrillation survival (<20% or >20%). RESULTS: Characteristics were similar among patients randomized to analyze early (n=4,964) versus analyze late (n=4,426). For EMS agencies with baseline ventricular fibrillation survival less than 20%, analyze late compared with analyze early was associated with a lower likelihood of favorable functional survival (3.8% versus 5.5%; odds ratio [OR]=0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.90]). Conversely, among agencies with a ventricular fibrillation survival greater than 20%, analyze late compared with analyze early was associated with higher likelihood of favorable functional survival (7.5% versus 6.1%; OR=1.22 [95% CI 0.98, 1.52]). In the multivariable-adjusted model, for every 10% increase in baseline ventricular fibrillation survival, analyze late versus analyze early was associated with a 34% increase in odds of favorable functional survival (OR=1.34 [95% CI 1.07 to 1.66]). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that system-level characteristics may influence resuscitation outcomes.
Authors: Thomas D Rea; Michael Helbock; Stephen Perry; Michele Garcia; Don Cloyd; Linda Becker; Mickey Eisenberg Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Clif Callaway; Dan Davis; Tom Terndrup; Judy Powell; Andrea Cook; Peter J Kudenchuk; Mohamud Daya; Richard Kerber; Ahamed Idris; Laurie J Morrison; Tom Aufderheide Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Laurie J Morrison; Graham Nichol; Thomas D Rea; Jim Christenson; Clifton W Callaway; Shannon Stephens; Ronald G Pirrallo; Dianne L Atkins; Daniel P Davis; Ahamed H Idris; Craig Newgard Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-05-13 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ian Jacobs; Vinay Nadkarni; Jan Bahr; Robert A Berg; John E Billi; Leo Bossaert; Pascal Cassan; Ashraf Coovadia; Kate D'Este; Judith Finn; Henry Halperin; Anthony Handley; Johan Herlitz; Robert Hickey; Ahamed Idris; Walter Kloeck; Gregory Luke Larkin; Mary Elizabeth Mancini; Pip Mason; Gregory Mears; Koenraad Monsieurs; William Montgomery; Peter Morley; Graham Nichol; Jerry Nolan; Kazuo Okada; Jeffrey Perlman; Michael Shuster; Petter Andreas Steen; Fritz Sterz; James Tibballs; Sergio Timerman; Tanya Truitt; David Zideman Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Graham Nichol; Elizabeth Thomas; Clifton W Callaway; Jerris Hedges; Judy L Powell; Tom P Aufderheide; Tom Rea; Robert Lowe; Todd Brown; John Dreyer; Dan Davis; Ahamed Idris; Ian Stiell Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sheldon Cheskes; Robert H Schmicker; P Richard Verbeek; David D Salcido; Siobhan P Brown; Steven Brooks; James J Menegazzi; Christian Vaillancourt; Judy Powell; Susanne May; Robert A Berg; Rebecca Sell; Ahamed Idris; Mike Kampp; Terri Schmidt; Jim Christenson Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Julie C McDonald; Jeanne M du Manoir; Nanor Kevork; Lisa W Le; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jason Coult; Heemun Kwok; Lawrence Sherman; Jennifer Blackwood; Peter J Kudenchuk; Thomas D Rea Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 1.438
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