Context Intravenous access and drug administration are included in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines despite a lack of evidence for improved outcomes. Epinephrine was an independent predictor of poor outcome in a large epidemiological study, possibly due to toxicity of the drug or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interruptions secondary to establishing an intravenous line and drug administration. Objective To determine whether removing intravenous drug administration from an ACLS protocol would improve survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective, randomized controlled trial of consecutive adult patients with out-of-hospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest treated within the emergency medical service system
ContextDefibrillation 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.ObjectiveTo 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.Design, Setting, and PatientsRandomized 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.Main Outcome MeasurePrimary 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsCompared 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.