Toshio Ogawa

Introduction: Conventional monophasic defibrillators for out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients have been replaced with biphasic defibrillators. However, the advantage of biphasic over monophasic defibrillation for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients who underwent monophasic defibrillation with those who underwent biphasic defibrillation. Methods: This prospective, nationwide, population-based observational study included pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. The primary outcome measure was survival at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment. The secondary outcome measures were survival at 1 month and the return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent association between defibrillator type (monophasic or biphasic) and outcomes. Results: Among 5,628 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients (1 through 17 years old), 430 who received defibrillation shock with monophasic or biphasic defibrillator were analyzed. The number of patients who received defibrillation shock with monophasic defibrillator was 127 (30%), and 303 (70%) received defibrillation shock with biphasic defibrillator. The survival rates at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment were 17.5% and 24.4%, the survival rates at 1 month were 32.3% and 35.6%, and the rates of return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival were 24.4% and 27.4% in the monophasic and biphasic defibrillator groups, respectively. Hierarchic logistic regression analyses by using generalized estimation equations found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 1-month survival with minimal neurologic impairment (odds ratio (OR), 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 2.83; P = 0.14) and 1-month survival (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.18; P = 0.17). Conclusions: The present nationwide population-based observational study could not confirm an advantage of biphasic over monophasic defibrillators for pediatric OHCA patients.

A growing elderly population along with advances in equipment and approaches for pre-hospital resuscitation necessitates up-to-date information when developing policies to improve elderly out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes. We examined the effects of bystander type (family or non-family) intervention on 1-month outcomes of witnessed elderly OHCA patients.

Introduction: The relationship between collapse to emergency medical service (EMS) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interval and outcome has been well documented. However, most studies have only analyzed cases of cardiac origin and Vf (ventricular fibrillation)/pulseless VT (ventricular tachycardia). We sought to examine all causes of cardiac arrest and analyze the relationship between collapse-to-EMS CPR interval and outcome in a nationwide sample using an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) registry. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study based on a nationwide OHCA patient registry in Japan between 2005 and 2008 (n = 431,968). We included cases where collapse was witnessed by a bystander and where collapse and intervention time were recorded (n = 109,350). Data were collected based on the Utstein template. One-month survival and neurologically favorable one-month survival were used as outcome measures. Logarithmic regression and logistic regression were used to examine the relation between outcomes and collapse-to-EMS CPR interval. Results: Among collapse-to-EMS CPR intervals between 3 and 30 minutes, the logarithmic regression equation for the relationship with one-month survival was y = -0.059 ln(x) + 0.21, while that for the relationship with neurologically favorable one-month survival was y = -0.041 ln(x) + 0.13. After adjusting for potential confounders in the logistic regression analysis for all intervals, longer collapse-to-EMS CPR intervals were associated with lower rates of one-month survival (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93 to 0.93) and neurologically favorable one-month survival (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.90). Conclusions: Improving the emergency medical system and CPR in cases of OHCA is important for improving the outcomes of OHCA.

Little is known about the effects of geographic variation on outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The present study investigated the relationship between population density, time between emergency call and ambulance arrival, and survival of OHCA, using the All-Japan Utstein-style registry database, coupled with geographic information system (GIS) data.

Introduction: There are inconsistent data about the effectiveness of prehospital physician-staffed advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) on the outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Furthermore, the relative importance of bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) and ACLS and the effectiveness of their combination have not been clearly demonstrated. Methods: Using a prospective, nationwide, population-based registry of all OHCA patients in Japan, we enrolled 95,072 patients whose arrests were witnessed by bystanders and 23,127 patients witnessed by emergency medical service providers between 2005 and 2007. We divided the bystander-witnessed arrest patients into Group A (ACLS by emergency life-saving technicians without BCPR), Group B (ACLS by emergency life-saving technicians with BCPR), Group C (ACLS by physicians without BCPR) and Group D (ACLS by physicians with BCPR). The outcome data included 1-month survival and neurological outcomes determined by the cerebral performance category. Results: Among the 95,072 bystander-witnessed arrest patients, 7,722 (8.1%) were alive at 1 month, including 2,754 (2.9%) with good performance and 3,171 (3.3%) with vegetative status or worse. BCPR occurred in 42% of bystander-witnessed arrests. In comparison with Group A, the rates of good-performance survival were significantly higher in Group B (odds ratio (OR), 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 2.05 to 2.42; P < 0.01) and Group D (OR, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 2.28 to 3.43; P < 0.01), while no significant difference was seen for Group C (OR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.61; P = 0.32). The occurrence of vegetative status or worse at 1 month was highest in Group C (OR, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.55 to 2.37; P < 0.01). Conclusions: In this registry-based study, BCPR significantly improved the survival of OHCA with good cerebral outcome. The groups with BCPR and ACLS by physicians had the best outcomes. However, receiving ACLS by physicians without preceding BCPR significantly increased the number of patients with neurologically unfavorable outcomes.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with chest compression only and conventional CPR on outcomes after cardiopulmonary arrest out of hospital. Design Nationwide population based observational study. Setting A nationwide emergency medical service system in Japan. Population All consecutive patients with out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, January 2005 to December 2007 in Japan, witnessed at the moment of collapse. Lay people attempted chest compression only CPR (n=20 707) or conventional CPR (mouth to mouth ventilation and chest compression) (n=19 328), and patients were transferred to hospital by ambulance. Main outcome measures Factors associated with better outcomes (assessed with χ², multiple logistic regression analysis, odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals): one month survival and neurologically favourable one month survival rates defined as category one (good cerebral performance) or two (moderate cerebral disability) of the cerebral performance categories. Results Conventional CPR was associated with better outcomes than chest compression only CPR, for both one month survival (adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.29) and neurologically favourable one month survival (1.17, 1.01 to 1.35). Neurologically favourable one month survival decreased with increasing age and with delays of up to 10 minutes in starting CPR for both conventional and chest compression only CPR. The benefit of conventional CPR over chest compression only CPR was significantly greater in younger people in non-cardiac cases (P=0.025) and with a delay in start of CPR after the event was witnessed in non-cardiac cases (P=0.015) and all cases combined (P=0.037). Conclusions Conventional CPR is associated with better outcomes than chest compression only CPR for selected patients with out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, such as those with arrests of non-cardiac origin and younger people, and people in whom there was delay in the start of CPR.