Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Systems of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The health and policy implications of regional variation in incidence and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest remain to be determined. To evaluate whether cardiac arrest incidence and outcome differ across geographic regions. Prospective observational study (the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium) of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in 10 North American sites (8 US and 2 Canadian) from May 1, 2006, to April 30, 2007, followed up to hospital discharge, and including data available as of June 28, 2008. Cases (aged 0-108 years) were assessed by organized emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, did not have traumatic injury, and received attempts at external defibrillation or chest compressions or resuscitation was not attempted. Census data were used to determine rates adjusted for age and sex. Incidence rate, mortality rate, case-fatality rate, and survival to discharge for patients assessed or treated by EMS personnel or with an initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation. Among the 10 sites, the total catchment population was 21.4 million, and there were 20,520 cardiac arrests. A total of 11,898 (58.0%) had resuscitation attempted; 2729 (22.9% of treated) had initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia or rhythms that were shockable by an automated external defibrillator; and 954 (4.6% of total) were discharged alive. The median incidence of EMS-treated cardiac arrest across sites was 52.1 (interquartile range [IQR], 48.0-70.1) per 100,000 population; survival ranged from 3.0% to 16.3%, with a median of 8.4% (IQR, 5.4%-10.4%). Median ventricular fibrillation incidence was 12.6 (IQR, 10.6-5.2) per 100,000 population; survival ranged from 7.7% to 39.9%, with a median of 22.0% (IQR, 15.0%-24.4%), with significant differences across sites for incidence and survival (P<.001). In this study involving 10 geographic regions in North America, there were significant and important regional differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome.

Extracorporeal life-support as an adjunct to cardiac resuscitation has shown encouraging outcomes in patients with cardiac arrest. However, there is little evidence about the benefit of the procedure compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), especially when continued for more than 10 min. We aimed to assess whether extracorporeal CPR was better than conventional CPR for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. We did a 3-year prospective observational study on the use of extracorporeal life-support for patients aged 18-75 years with witnessed in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin undergoing CPR of more than 10 min compared with patients receiving conventional CPR. A matching process based on propensity-score was done to equalise potential prognostic factors in both groups, and to formulate a balanced 1:1 matched cohort study. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge, and analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00173615. Of the 975 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest events who underwent CPR for longer than 10 min, 113 were enrolled in the conventional CPR group and 59 were enrolled in the extracorporeal CPR group. Unmatched patients who underwent extracorporeal CPR had a higher survival rate to discharge (log-rank p<0.0001) and a better 1-year survival than those who received conventional CPR (log rank p=0.007). Between the propensity-score matched groups, there was still a significant difference in survival to discharge (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.74, p<0.0001), 30-day survival (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28-0.77, p=0.003), and 1-year survival (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.83, p=0.006) favouring extracorporeal CPR over conventional CPR. Extracorporeal CPR had a short-term and long-term survival benefit over conventional CPR in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin.

The rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low. It is not known whether this rate will increase if laypersons are trained to attempt defibrillation with the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). We conducted a prospective, community-based, multicenter clinical trial in which we randomly assigned community units (e.g., shopping malls and apartment complexes) to a structured and monitored emergency-response system involving lay volunteers trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone or in CPR and the use of AEDs. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. More than 19,000 volunteer responders from 993 community units in 24 North American regions participated. The two study groups had similar unit and volunteer characteristics. Patients with treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the two groups were similar in age (mean, 69.8 years), proportion of men (67 percent), rate of cardiac arrest in a public location (70 percent), and rate of witnessed cardiac arrest (72 percent). No inappropriate shocks were delivered. There were more survivors to hospital discharge in the units assigned to have volunteers trained in CPR plus the use of AEDs (30 survivors among 128 arrests) than there were in the units assigned to have volunteers trained only in CPR (15 among 107; P=0.03; relative risk, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.07 to 3.77); there were only 2 survivors in residential complexes. Functional status at hospital discharge did not differ between the two groups. Training and equipping volunteers to attempt early defibrillation within a structured response system can increase the number of survivors to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in public locations. Trained laypersons can use AEDs safely and effectively. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society