Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Currently, there is no consensus on the number of defibrillation attempts that should be made before transfer to a hospital in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This study aimed to evaluate the association between the number of defibrillations and a sustained prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).
Methods A retrospective analysis of a multicentre, prospectively collected, registry-based study in Republic of Korea was conducted for OHCA patients with prehospital defibrillation. The primary outcome was sustained prehospital ROSC, and the secondary outcome was a good neurological outcome at hospital discharge, defined as Cerebral Performance Category score 1 or 2. Cumulative incidence of sustained prehospital ROSC and good neurological outcome according to number of defibrillations were examined. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine whether the number of defibrillations was independently associated with the outcomes.
Results Excluding 172 patients with missing data, a total of 1983 OHCA patients who received prehospital defibrillation were included. The median time from arrest to first defibrillation was 10 (IQR 7–15) min. The numbers of patients with sustained prehospital ROSC and good neurological outcome were 738 (37%) and 549 (28%), respectively. Sustained ROSC rates decreased as the number of defibrillation attempts increased from the first to the sixth (16%, 9%, 5%, 3%, 2% and 1%, respectively). The cumulative sustained ROSC rate, and good neurological outcome rate from initial defibrillation to sixth defibrillation were 16%, 25%, 30%, 34%, 36%, 36% and 11%, 18%, 22%, 25%, 26%, 27%, respectively. With adjustment for clinical characteristics and time to defibrillation, a higher number of defibrillations was independently associated with a lower chance of a sustained ROSC (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86) and a lower chance of good neurological outcome (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.92).
Conclusions We observed no significant increase in ROSC after five defibrillations, and no absolute increase in ROSC after seven defibrillations. These data provide a starting point for determination of the optimal defibrillation strategy prior to consideration for prehospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) or conveyance to a hospital with an ECPR capability.
Trial registration number NCT03222999
- resuscitation
- emergency department
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, (WYK), on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, (WYK), on reasonable request.
Footnotes
Handling editor Ed Benjamin Graham Barnard
Contributors WYK (guarantor), TL, BSK and SH: conception, design and interpretation of data; drafting and revising of manuscript; final approval of the manuscript submitted. Y-JK, YHJ and JHS: analysis and interpretation of data; final approval of the manuscript submitted. IP, HK, Y-JK, KSH and BSK: interpretation of data; revising of manuscript; final approval of the manuscript submitted. WYK, KSH, HK and TL: conception, design and interpretation of data; drafting and revising of manuscript; final approval of the manuscript submitted.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.