Brian Grunau1,2, Noah Kime3, Brian Leroux3, Thomas Rea3, Gerald Van Belle3, James J Menegazzi4, Peter J Kudenchuk3, Christian Vaillancourt5, Laurie J Morrison6, Jonathan Elmer4, Dana M Zive7, Nancy M Le7, Michael Austin5, Neal J Richmond8, Heather Herren3, Jim Christenson1,2. 1. Departments of Emergency Medicine and the Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada. 2. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 6. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 7. Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. 8. Metropolitan Area EMS Authority/Emergency Physicians Advisory Board, Ft Worth, Texas.
Abstract
Importance: There is wide variability among emergency medical systems (EMS) with respect to transport to hospital during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitative efforts. The benefit of intra-arrest transport during resuscitation compared with continued on-scene resuscitation is unclear. Objective: To determine whether intra-arrest transport compared with continued on-scene resuscitation is associated with survival to hospital discharge among patients experiencing OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of prospectively collected consecutive nontraumatic adult EMS-treated OHCA data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (enrollment, April 2011-June 2015 from 10 North American sites; follow-up until the date of hospital discharge or death [regardless of when either event occurred]). Patients treated with intra-arrest transport (exposed) were matched with patients in refractory arrest (at risk of intra-arrest transport) at that same time (unexposed), using a time-dependent propensity score. Subgroups categorized by initial cardiac rhythm and EMS-witnessed cardiac arrests were analyzed. Exposures: Intra-arrest transport (transport initiated prior to return of spontaneous circulation), compared with continued on-scene resuscitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival with favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale <3) at hospital discharge. Results: The full cohort included 43 969 patients with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range, 55-80), 37% were women, 86% of cardiac arrests occurred in a private location, 49% were bystander- or EMS-witnessed, 22% had initial shockable rhythms, 97% were treated by out-of-hospital advanced life support, and 26% underwent intra-arrest transport. Survival to hospital discharge was 3.8% for patients who underwent intra-arrest transport and 12.6% for those who received on-scene resuscitation. In the propensity-matched cohort, which included 27 705 patients, survival to hospital discharge occurred in 4.0% of patients who underwent intra-arrest transport vs 8.5% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.6% [95% CI, 4.0%- 5.1%]). Favorable neurological outcome occurred in 2.9% of patients who underwent intra-arrest transport vs 7.1% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.9%]). Subgroups of initial shockable and nonshockable rhythms as well as EMS-witnessed and unwitnessed cardiac arrests all had a significant association between intra-arrest transport and lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intra-arrest transport to hospital compared with continued on-scene resuscitation was associated with lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Study findings are limited by potential confounding due to observational design.
Importance: There is wide variability among emergency medical systems (EMS) with respect to transport to hospital during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitative efforts. The benefit of intra-arrest transport during resuscitation compared with continued on-scene resuscitation is unclear. Objective: To determine whether intra-arrest transport compared with continued on-scene resuscitation is associated with survival to hospital discharge among patients experiencing OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study of prospectively collected consecutive nontraumatic adult EMS-treated OHCA data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (enrollment, April 2011-June 2015 from 10 North American sites; follow-up until the date of hospital discharge or death [regardless of when either event occurred]). Patients treated with intra-arrest transport (exposed) were matched with patients in refractory arrest (at risk of intra-arrest transport) at that same time (unexposed), using a time-dependent propensity score. Subgroups categorized by initial cardiac rhythm and EMS-witnessed cardiac arrests were analyzed. Exposures: Intra-arrest transport (transport initiated prior to return of spontaneous circulation), compared with continued on-scene resuscitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival with favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale <3) at hospital discharge. Results: The full cohort included 43 969 patients with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range, 55-80), 37% were women, 86% of cardiac arrests occurred in a private location, 49% were bystander- or EMS-witnessed, 22% had initial shockable rhythms, 97% were treated by out-of-hospital advanced life support, and 26% underwent intra-arrest transport. Survival to hospital discharge was 3.8% for patients who underwent intra-arrest transport and 12.6% for those who received on-scene resuscitation. In the propensity-matched cohort, which included 27 705 patients, survival to hospital discharge occurred in 4.0% of patients who underwent intra-arrest transport vs 8.5% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.6% [95% CI, 4.0%- 5.1%]). Favorable neurological outcome occurred in 2.9% of patients who underwent intra-arrest transport vs 7.1% who received on-scene resuscitation (risk difference, 4.2% [95% CI, 3.5%-4.9%]). Subgroups of initial shockable and nonshockable rhythms as well as EMS-witnessed and unwitnessed cardiac arrests all had a significant association between intra-arrest transport and lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intra-arrest transport to hospital compared with continued on-scene resuscitation was associated with lower probability of survival to hospital discharge. Study findings are limited by potential confounding due to observational design.
Authors: Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Eng Hoe Tan; Faith Suan Peng Ng; Susan Yap; Anushia Panchalingham; Benjamin Sieu-Hon Leong; Victor Yeok Kein Ong; Ling Tiah; Swee Han Lim; Anantharaman Venkataraman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2007-06-12 Impact factor: 5.262
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: Resuscitation Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ashish R Panchal; Katherine M Berg; Karen G Hirsch; Peter J Kudenchuk; Marina Del Rios; José G Cabañas; Mark S Link; Michael C Kurz; Paul S Chan; Peter T Morley; Mary Fran Hazinski; Michael W Donnino Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Niels Henrik Krarup; Christian Juhl Terkelsen; Søren Paaske Johnsen; Peter Clemmensen; Göran K Olivecrona; Troels Martin Hansen; Sven Trautner; Jens Flensted Lassen Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Lars W Andersen; Asger Granfeldt; Clifton W Callaway; Steven M Bradley; Jasmeet Soar; Jerry P Nolan; Tobias Kurth; Michael W Donnino Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brooke L Watanabe; Gregory S Patterson; James M Kempema; Orlando Magallanes; Lawrence H Brown Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-12 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Peter J Kudenchuk; Siobhan P Brown; Mohamud Daya; Thomas Rea; Graham Nichol; Laurie J Morrison; Brian Leroux; Christian Vaillancourt; Lynn Wittwer; Clifton W Callaway; James Christenson; Debra Egan; Joseph P Ornato; Myron L Weisfeldt; Ian G Stiell; Ahamed H Idris; Tom P Aufderheide; James V Dunford; M Riccardo Colella; Gary M Vilke; Ashley M Brienza; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Pamela C Gray; Randal Gray; Norman Seals; Ron Straight; Paul Dorian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Travis W Murphy; Scott A Cohen; Charles W Hwang; K Leslie Avery; Meenakshi P Balakrishnan; Ramani Balu; Muhammad Abdul Baker Chowdhury; David B Crabb; Yasmeen Elmelige; Carolina B Maciel; Sarah S Gul; Francis Han; Torben K Becker Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2022-07-14
Authors: Jan Belohlavek; Jana Smalcova; Daniel Rob; Ondrej Franek; Ondrej Smid; Milana Pokorna; Jan Horák; Vratislav Mrazek; Tomas Kovarnik; David Zemanek; Ales Kral; Stepan Havranek; Petra Kavalkova; Lucie Kompelentova; Helena Tomková; Alan Mejstrik; Jaroslav Valasek; David Peran; Jaroslav Pekara; Jan Rulisek; Martin Balik; Michal Huptych; Jiri Jarkovsky; Jan Malik; Anna Valerianova; Frantisek Mlejnsky; Petr Kolouch; Petra Havrankova; Dan Romportl; Arnost Komarek; Ales Linhart Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Kate McKenzie; Saoirse Cameron; Natalya Odoardi; Katelyn Gray; Michael R Miller; Janice A Tijssen Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 3.418