Shahzleen Rajan1, Fredrik Folke2, Steen Møller Hansen3, Carolina Malta Hansen4, Kristian Kragholm5, Thomas A Gerds6, Freddy K Lippert7, Lena Karlsson8, Sidsel Møller8, Lars Køber9, Gunnar H Gislason10, Christian Torp-Pedersen11, Mads Wissenberg12. 1. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Denmark. Electronic address: shahzleen@gmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Denmark; Emergency Medical Services Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 4. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Denmark; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States. 5. Department of Anesthesiology & Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 7. Emergency Medical Services Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Denmark. 9. Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. 10. The National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark. 11. Department of Health, Science and Technology, Aalborg University, and Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 12. Emergency Medical Services Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine and PET, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about heart rhythm conversion from non-shockable to shockable rhythm during resuscitation attempt after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and following chance of survival is limited and inconsistent. METHODS: We studied 13,860 patients with presumed cardiac-caused OHCA not witnessed by the emergency medical services from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Register (2005-2012). Patients were stratified according to rhythm: shockable, converted shockable (based on receipt of subsequent defibrillation) and sustained non-shockable rhythm. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of rhythm conversion and to compute 30-day survival chances. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of patients who received pre-hospital defibrillation by ambulance personnel were initially found in non-shockable rhythms. Younger age, males, witnessed arrest, shorter response time, and heart disease were significantly associated with conversion to shockable rhythm, while psychiatric- and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were significantly associated with sustained non-shockable rhythm. Compared to sustained non-shockable rhythms, converted shockable rhythms and initial shockable rhythms were significantly associated with increased 30-day survival (Adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-3.8; and OR 16.4, 95% CI 12.7-21.2, respectively). From 2005 to 2012, 30-day survival chances increased significantly for all three groups: shockable rhythms, from 16.3% (CI: 14.2%-18.7%) to 35.7% (CI: 32.5%-38.9%); converted rhythms, from 2.1% (CI: 1.6%-2.9%) to 5.8% (CI: 4.4%-7.6%); and sustained non-shockable rhythms, from 0.6% (CI: 0.5%-0.8%) to 1.8% (CI: 1.4%-2.2%). CONCLUSION: Converting to shockable rhythm during resuscitation attempt was common and associated with nearly a three-fold higher odds of 30-day survival compared to sustained non-shockable rhythms.
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about heart rhythm conversion from non-shockable to shockable rhythm during resuscitation attempt after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and following chance of survival is limited and inconsistent. METHODS: We studied 13,860 patients with presumed cardiac-caused OHCA not witnessed by the emergency medical services from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Register (2005-2012). Patients were stratified according to rhythm: shockable, converted shockable (based on receipt of subsequent defibrillation) and sustained non-shockable rhythm. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of rhythm conversion and to compute 30-day survival chances. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of patients who received pre-hospital defibrillation by ambulance personnel were initially found in non-shockable rhythms. Younger age, males, witnessed arrest, shorter response time, and heart disease were significantly associated with conversion to shockable rhythm, while psychiatric- and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were significantly associated with sustained non-shockable rhythm. Compared to sustained non-shockable rhythms, converted shockable rhythms and initial shockable rhythms were significantly associated with increased 30-day survival (Adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-3.8; and OR 16.4, 95% CI 12.7-21.2, respectively). From 2005 to 2012, 30-day survival chances increased significantly for all three groups: shockable rhythms, from 16.3% (CI: 14.2%-18.7%) to 35.7% (CI: 32.5%-38.9%); converted rhythms, from 2.1% (CI: 1.6%-2.9%) to 5.8% (CI: 4.4%-7.6%); and sustained non-shockable rhythms, from 0.6% (CI: 0.5%-0.8%) to 1.8% (CI: 1.4%-2.2%). CONCLUSION: Converting to shockable rhythm during resuscitation attempt was common and associated with nearly a three-fold higher odds of 30-day survival compared to sustained non-shockable rhythms.
Authors: Simon A Amacher; Chantal Bohren; René Blatter; Christoph Becker; Katharina Beck; Jonas Mueller; Nina Loretz; Sebastian Gross; Kai Tisljar; Raoul Sutter; Christian Appenzeller-Herzog; Stephan Marsch; Sabina Hunziker Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Peter J Kudenchuk; Brian G Leroux; Mohamud Daya; Thomas Rea; Christian Vaillancourt; Laurie J Morrison; Clifton W Callaway; James Christenson; Joseph P Ornato; James V Dunford; Lynn Wittwer; Myron L Weisfeldt; Tom P Aufderheide; Gary M Vilke; Ahamed H Idris; Ian G Stiell; M Riccardo Colella; Tami Kayea; Debra Egan; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Pamela Gray; Randal Gray; Ron Straight; Paul Dorian Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carlo A Barcella; Talip E Eroglu; Michiel Hulleman; Asger Granfeldt; Patrick C Souverein; Grimur H Mohr; Rudolph W Koster; Mads Wissenberg; Anthonius de Boer; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Fredrik Folke; Marieke T Blom; Gunnar H Gislason; Hanno L Tan Journal: Europace Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Marieke T Blom; Iris Oving; Jocelyn Berdowski; Irene G M van Valkengoed; Abdenasser Bardai; Hanno L Tan Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Carlos M G de Godoy; Ênio R Vasques; Afonso Caricati-Neto; José G P Tavares; Beatriz J Alves; Juliana Duarte; Regiane Miranda-Ferreira; Marcelo A Lima; Helena B Nader; Ivarne L Dos Santos Tersariol Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2018-06-07
Authors: Mark Dennis; Sean Lal; Paul Forrest; Alistair Nichol; Lionel Lamhaut; Richard J Totaro; Brian Burns; Claudio Sandroni Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 5.501