Andreas Bürger1, Jan Wnent, Andreas Bohn, Tanja Jantzen, Sigrid Brenner, Rolf Lefering, Stephan Seewald, Jan-Thorsten Gräsner, Matthias Fischer. 1. * These two authors share first authorship; Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine, and Pain Therapy, Klinik am Eichert, ALB FILS Kliniken, Göppingen; Institute for Emergency Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kiel Campus, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein; City of Münster, Fire Department; Intensive Care Transport Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, German Red Cross Parchim; Department of Anesthesiology, Carl Gustav Carus University Hospital, Dresden; Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Department of Statistics and Registry Research, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one of the more common causes of death in Germany. Ambulance response time is an important planning parameter for emergency medical services (EMS) systems. We studied the effect of ambulance response time on survival after resuscitation from OHCA. METHODS: We analyzed data from the German Resuscitation Registry for the years 2010-2016. First, we used a multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the effect of ambulance response time (defined as the interval from the alarm to the arrival of the first rescue vehicle) on the hospital-discharge rate (in percent), depending on various factors, including resuscitation by bystanders. Second, we compared faster and slower EMS systems (defined as those arriving on the scene within 8 minutes in more than 75% of cases or in ≤ 75% of cases) with respect to the frequency of resuscitation and the number of surviving patients. RESULTS: Our analysis of data from a total of 10 853 patients in the logistical regression model revealed that the rate of hospital discharge was significantly affected by the ambulance response time, bystander resuscitation, past medical history, age, witnessed vs. unwitnessed collapse, the initial heart rhythm, and the site of the collapse. The success of resuscitation was inversely related to the ambulance response time; thus, among patients who did not receive bystander resuscitation, the discharge rate declined from 12.9% at a mean response time of 1 minute and 10 seconds to 6.4% at a mean response time of 9 minutes and 47 seconds. Twelve faster EMS systems and 13 slower ones were identified, with a total of 9669 and 7865 resuscitated patients, respectively. The faster EMS systems initiated resuscitation more frequently and also had a higher discharge rate with good neurological outcome in proportion to the population of the catchment area (7.7 versus 5.6 persons per 100 000 population per year, odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [0.66; 0.79], p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Rapid ambulance response is associated with a higher rate of survival from OHCA with good neurological outcome. The response time, independently of whether bystander resuscitation measures are provided, ha^ a significant independent effect on the survival rate. In drawing conclusions from these findings, one should bear in mind that this was a retrospective registry study, with the corresponding limitations.
BACKGROUND: Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one of the more common causes of death in Germany. Ambulance response time is an important planning parameter for emergency medical services (EMS) systems. We studied the effect of ambulance response time on survival after resuscitation from OHCA. METHODS: We analyzed data from the German Resuscitation Registry for the years 2010-2016. First, we used a multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine the effect of ambulance response time (defined as the interval from the alarm to the arrival of the first rescue vehicle) on the hospital-discharge rate (in percent), depending on various factors, including resuscitation by bystanders. Second, we compared faster and slower EMS systems (defined as those arriving on the scene within 8 minutes in more than 75% of cases or in ≤ 75% of cases) with respect to the frequency of resuscitation and the number of surviving patients. RESULTS: Our analysis of data from a total of 10 853 patients in the logistical regression model revealed that the rate of hospital discharge was significantly affected by the ambulance response time, bystander resuscitation, past medical history, age, witnessed vs. unwitnessed collapse, the initial heart rhythm, and the site of the collapse. The success of resuscitation was inversely related to the ambulance response time; thus, among patients who did not receive bystander resuscitation, the discharge rate declined from 12.9% at a mean response time of 1 minute and 10 seconds to 6.4% at a mean response time of 9 minutes and 47 seconds. Twelve faster EMS systems and 13 slower ones were identified, with a total of 9669 and 7865 resuscitated patients, respectively. The faster EMS systems initiated resuscitation more frequently and also had a higher discharge rate with good neurological outcome in proportion to the population of the catchment area (7.7 versus 5.6 persons per 100 000 population per year, odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [0.66; 0.79], p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Rapid ambulance response is associated with a higher rate of survival from OHCA with good neurological outcome. The response time, independently of whether bystander resuscitation measures are provided, ha^ a significant independent effect on the survival rate. In drawing conclusions from these findings, one should bear in mind that this was a retrospective registry study, with the corresponding limitations.
Authors: Gavin D Perkins; Ian G Jacobs; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Leo L Bossaert; Stephen J Brett; Douglas Chamberlain; Allan R de Caen; Charles D Deakin; Judith C Finn; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Mary Fran Hazinski; Taku Iwami; Rudolph W Koster; Swee Han Lim; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Bryan F McNally; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Koenraad G Monsieurs; William Montgomery; Graham Nichol; Kazuo Okada; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Andrew H Travers; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carolina Malta Hansen; Kristian Kragholm; Christopher B Granger; David A Pearson; Clark Tyson; Lisa Monk; Claire Corbett; R Darrell Nelson; Matthew E Dupre; Emil L Fosbøl; Benjamin Strauss; Christopher B Fordyce; Bryan McNally; James G Jollis Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Robert Greif; Andrew S Lockey; Patricia Conaghan; Anne Lippert; Wiebe De Vries; Koenraad G Monsieurs Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Rolf Lefering; Rudolph W Koster; Siobhán Masterson; Bernd W Böttiger; Johan Herlitz; Jan Wnent; Ingvild B M Tjelmeland; Fernando Rosell Ortiz; Holger Maurer; Michael Baubin; Pierre Mols; Irzal Hadžibegović; Marios Ioannides; Roman Škulec; Mads Wissenberg; Ari Salo; Hervé Hubert; Nikolaos I Nikolaou; Gerda Lóczi; Hildigunnur Svavarsdóttir; Federico Semeraro; Peter J Wright; Carlo Clarens; Ruud Pijls; Grzegorz Cebula; Vitor Gouveia Correia; Diana Cimpoesu; Violetta Raffay; Stefan Trenkler; Andrej Markota; Anneli Strömsöe; Roman Burkart; Gavin D Perkins; Leo L Bossaert Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ingela Hasselqvist-Ax; Gabriel Riva; Johan Herlitz; Mårten Rosenqvist; Jacob Hollenberg; Per Nordberg; Mattias Ringh; Martin Jonsson; Christer Axelsson; Jonny Lindqvist; Thomas Karlsson; Leif Svensson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F Sanfilippo; C Corredor; C Santonocito; G Panarello; A Arcadipane; G Ristagno; T Pellis Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Sheldon Cheskes; Shelley L McLeod; Michael Nolan; Paul Snobelen; Christian Vaillancourt; Steven C Brooks; Katie N Dainty; Timothy C Y Chan; Ian R Drennan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Hassan N Moafa; Sander Martijn Job van Kuijk; Dhafer M Alqahtani; Mohammed E Moukhyer; Harm R Haak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390