Article

Delaying Defibrillation to Give Basic Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation to Patients With Out-of-Hospital Ventricular Fibrillation: A Randomized Trial

University of Stavanger (UiS), Stavenger, Rogaland, Norway
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 04/2003; 289(11):1389-95. DOI: 10.1001/jama.289.11.1389
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Defibrillation as soon as possible is standard treatment for patients with ventricular fibrillation. A nonrandomized study indicates that after a few minutes of ventricular fibrillation, delaying defibrillation to give cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) first might improve the outcome.
To determine the effects of CPR before defibrillation on outcome in patients with ventricular fibrillation and with response times either up to or longer than 5 minutes.
Randomized trial of 200 patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation in Oslo, Norway, between June 1998 and May 2001. Patients received either standard care with immediate defibrillation (n = 96) or CPR first with 3 minutes of basic CPR by ambulance personnel prior to defibrillation (n = 104). If initial defibrillation was unsuccessful, the standard group received 1 minute of CPR before additional defibrillation attempts compared with 3 minutes in the CPR first group.
Primary end point was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary end points were hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-year survival, and neurological outcome. A prespecified analysis examined subgroups with response times either up to or longer than 5 minutes.
In the standard group, 14 (15%) of 96 patients survived to hospital discharge vs 23 (22%) of 104 in the CPR first group (P =.17). There were no differences in ROSC rates between the standard group (56% [58/104]) and the CPR first group (46% [44/96]; P =.16); or in 1-year survival (20% [21/104] and 15% [14/96], respectively; P =.30). In subgroup analysis for patients with ambulance response times of either up to 5 minutes or shorter, there were no differences in any outcome variables between the CPR first group (n = 40) and the standard group (n = 41). For patients with response intervals of longer than 5 minutes, more patients achieved ROSC in the CPR first group (58% [37/64]) compared with the standard group (38% [21/55]; odds ratio [OR], 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.63; P =.04); survival to hospital discharge (22% [14/64] vs 4% [2/55]; OR, 7.42; 95% CI, 1.61-34.3; P =.006); and 1-year survival (20% [13/64] vs 4% [2/55]; OR, 6.76; 95% CI, 1.42-31.4; P =.01). Thirty-three (89%) of 37 patients who survived to hospital discharge had no or minor reductions in neurological status with no difference between the groups.
Compared with standard care for ventricular fibrillation, CPR first prior to defibrillation offered no advantage in improving outcomes for this entire study population or for patients with ambulance response times shorter than 5 minutes. However, the patients with ventricular fibrillation and ambulance response intervals longer than 5 minutes had better outcomes with CPR first before defibrillation was attempted. These results require confirmation in additional randomized trials.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Bjørn Auestad
  • Source
    • "Thus, effective CPR is often a prerequisite for effective defibrillation . Patients presenting in ventricular fibrillation have relatively high survivability with early defibrillation [45]. In practice, the device is usually applied in patients who do not respond to initial defibrillation and require prolonged CPR. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literatures comparing the use of mechanical chest compression device and manual chest compression during cardiac arrest (CA) with respect to short-term survival outcomes and neurological function. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles by handsearch. The inclusion criteria for this review must be human prospective controlled studies of adult CA. Random effects models were used to assess the risk ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and discharge, and neurological function. Twelve trials (9 out-of-hospital and 3 in-hospital studies), involving 11,162 participants, were included in the review. The results of this meta-analysis indicated no differences were found in Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scores, survival to hospital admission and survival to discharge between manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and mechanical CPR for out-of-hospital CA (OHCA) patients. The data on achieving ROSC in both of in-hospital and out-of-hospital setting suggested poor application of the mechanical device (RR 0.71, [95 % CI, 0.53, 0.97] and 0.87 [95 % CI, 0.81, 0.94], respectively). OHCA patients receiving manual resuscitation were more likely to attain ROSC compared with load-distributing bands chest compression device (RR 0.88, [95 % CI, 0.80, 0.96]). The in-hospital studies suggested increased relative harm with mechanical compressions for ratio of survival to hospital discharge (RR 0.54, [95 % CI 0.29, 0.98]). However, the results were not statistically significant between different kinds of mechanical chest compression devices and manual resuscitation in survival to admission, discharge and CPC scores for OHCA patients and survival to discharge for in-hospital CA patients. The ability to achieve ROSC with mechanical devise was inferior to manual chest compression during resuscitation. The use of mechanical chest compression cannot be recommended as a replacement for manual CPR, but rather a supplemental treatment in an overall strategy for treating CA patients.
    Preview · Article · Dec 2016 · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
  • Source
    • "Another study reported that life expectancy and quality of life were similar in patients who had survived OHCA-VF compared to a matched population [22]. Whereas early studies suggested a benefit of CPR before defibrillation [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], recent studies do not support these findings [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Thus, current CPR guidelines do not recommend a specific CPR interval before defibrillation but highlight the importance of efficient and continuous chest compressions with as short as possible hands-off time until successful defibrillation [25] [34] [35]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim of the study Automated external defibrillation (AED) and public access defibrillation (PAD) have become cornerstones in the chain of survival in modern cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Most studies of AED and PAD have been performed in urban areas and evidence is scarce for sparsely populated rural areas. The aim of this review was to review the literature and discuss treatment strategies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in rural areas. Methods A Medline search was performed with the keywords “automated external defibrillation” (617 hits), “public access defibrillation” (256), “automated external defibrillator public” (542). Of these 1415 abstracts and additional articles found by manual searching references, 92 articles were included in this non-systematic review. Results Early defibrillation is crucial for survival with good neurological outcome after cardiac arrest. Rapid defibrillation can be a challenge in sparsely populated and remote areas, where the incidence of cardiac arrest is low and rescuer response times can be long. The few studies performed in rural areas showed that the introduction of AED programs based on a two-tier emergency medical system (EMS), consisting of a Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) team, resulted in a decrease in collapse-to-defibrillation times and better survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Conclusions In rural areas, introducing AED programs and a two-tier EMS may increase survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. More studies on AED and PAD in rural areas are required.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2014 · American Journal of Emergency Medicine
  • Source
    • "After 10 minutes of VF, few patients are successfully resuscitated (2). However, after 5 minutes of VF, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for 3 minutes prior to the first shock resulted in 22% survival to hospital discharge and 4% survival when the defibrillation shock was given before CPR (3). Thus, survival after more than 5 minutes of VF is possible. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim To determine the role of repetitive endocardial focal activations and Purkinje fibers in the maintenance of long duration ventricular fibrillation (LDVF, VF>1 minute) in canine hearts in vivo. Methods The study was conducted in electrophysiological laboratory of Shanghai Ruijin hospital from July 2010 to August 2012. A 64-electrode basket was introduced through a carotid artery into the left ventricle (LV) of 11 beagle dogs for global endocardial electrical mapping. In the Lugol’s solution group (n = 5), the subendocardium was ablated by washing with Lugol’s solution. In the control group, (n = 6) saline was used for ablation. Before and after saline or Lugol ablation, we determined QRS duration and QT/QTc interval in sinus rhythm (SR). We also measured the activation rates in the first 2 seconds of each minute during 7 minutes of VF for each group. If VF terminated spontaneously in less than 7 minutes, the VF segments used in activation rate analysis were reduced accordingly. Results At the beginning of VF there was no difference between the groups in the activation rate. However, after 1 minute of LDVF the Lugol’s solution group had significantly slower activation rate than the control group. In the control group, all episodes of LDVF (6/6) were successfully sustained for 7 minutes, while in the Lugol’s solution group 4/5 episodes of LDVF spontaneously terminated before 7 minutes (4.8 ± 1.4 minutes) (P = 0.015). In the control group, at 5.1 ± 1.3 minutes of LDVF, a successive, highly organized focal LV endocardial activation pattern was observed. During this period, activations partly arose in PF and spread to the working ventricular myocardium. Mapping analysis showed that these events were consistent with repetitive endocardial focal activations. No evidence of similar focal activations was observed in the Lugol’s solution group. Conclusions Repetitive endocardial focal activations in the LV endocardium may be associated with activation of subendocardial PFs. This mechanism may play an important role in the maintenance of LDVF.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2014 · Croatian Medical Journal
Show more