ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms can be improved with early defibrillation. Although shockable OHCA accounts for only ≈25% of overall arrests, ≈60% of public OHCAs are shockable, offering the possibility of restoring thousands of individuals to full recovery with early defibrillation by bystanders. We sought to determine the association of bystander automated external defibrillator use with survival and functional outcomes in shockable observed public OHCA. METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium prospectively collected detailed information on all cardiac arrests at 9 regional centers. The exposures were shock administration by a bystander-applied automated external defibrillator in comparison with initial defibrillation by emergency medical services. The primary outcome measure was discharge with normal or near-normal (favorable) functional status defined as a modified Rankin Score ≤2. Survival to hospital discharge was the secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Among 49 555 OHCAs, 4115 (8.3%) observed public OHCAs were analyzed, of which 2500 (60.8%) were shockable. A bystander shock was applied in 18.8% of the shockable arrests. Patients shocked by a bystander were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (66.5% versus 43.0%) and be discharged with favorable functional outcome (57.1% versus 32.7%) than patients initially shocked by emergency medical services. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome, the odds ratio associated with a bystander shock was 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 2.07-3.31) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.17-3.44) for discharge with favorable functional outcome. The benefit of bystander shock increased progressively as emergency medical services response time became longer. CONCLUSIONS: Bystander automated external defibrillator use before emergency medical services arrival in shockable observed public OHCA was associated with better survival and functional outcomes. Continued emphasis on public automated external defibrillator utilization programs may further improve outcomes of OHCA.
Subject(s)
Defibrillators , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Shock/etiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Emergency Medical Services , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/complications , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/mortality , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Shock/diagnosis , Survival Rate , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To develop guidelines allowing emergency medical services (EMS) dispatchers to safely match callers to an EMS response or, alternatively, to a nontraditional resource. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of callers to an urban EMS dispatch center and an associated review of EMS patient care forms and emergency department (ED) patient care records. The following five "nature codes" (patient chief complaints) were included: back pain, fall, bleeding or laceration, sick, and trauma. Callers included in the study had been assigned the lowest severity level (Alpha), according to existing dispatch criteria. An a priori list of EMS and ED "important findings," indicating need for an EMS response, was used as the outcome variable. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to develop a decision rule to further identify a low-risk subgroup of patients who could potentially be served by alternative resources. RESULTS: From November 1, 1998, to May 31, 1999, 656 subjects were entered into the study, including 263 males (40%) and 389 females (59%). The mean age was 51 years (range, 0-101 years). One hundred twenty-five (19%) callers had an important EMS finding, including the administration of comfort medications, morphine, benzodiazepines, and droperidol. Forty-six subjects (7%) had an important ED finding. When EMS and ED findings were combined, 158 subjects (24%) had an "important finding." Using CART analysis, having an age <12 years predicted a subset of patients who did not have an important finding suggesting the need for an EMS response. Using cross-validation, this decision rule had a 99% sensitivity, 13% specificity, and 98% negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: The authors were able to use a demographic variable (age) to predict a population of callers to a 911 dispatch center triaged to the lowest acuity category, who have a very low risk of having an EMS or ED important finding. The decision rule developed here is preliminary, requiring further validation.
