Soichi Koike, Seizan Tanabe, Toshio Ogawa, Manabu Akahane, Hideo Yasunaga, Hiromasa Horiguchi, Shinya Matsumoto, Tomoaki Imamura
PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE 15(3) 393-400 2011年7月 査読有り
Objectives. This study aimed to determine whether short cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by emergency medical services before defibrillation (CPR first) has a better outcome than immediate defibrillation followed by CPR (shock first) in patients with ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pulseless VT) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods. We analyzed a national database between 2006 and 2008, and included patients aged 18 years or more who had witnessed cardiac arrests and whose first recorded rhythm was VF/pulseless VT. Those study subjects were divided into five groups in accordance with the CPR/defibrillation intervention sequence. Each group was subdivided into call-to-response intervals of < 5 minutes and >= a parts per thousand yen5 minutes. We identified 267 patients in the shock-first group and 6,407 patients in the CPR-first group. One-month survival and neurologically favorable one-month survival rates were used for outcome measures. The association of intervention type on outcomes (one-month survival or neurologically favorable one-month survival) was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analyses by adjusting potential confounding factors such as survey year, gender, age (years), bystander CPR, intubation, and call-to-response interval (min). Results. The overall one-month survival rate was 26.2%% (3,125/11,941) and the neurologically favorable one-month survival rate was 16.6%% (1,983/11,934). The CPR-first group had a one-month survival rate of 27.8%% (1,780/6,407) and a neurologically favorable one-month survival rate of 17.8%% (1,140/6,404), and the shock-first group had survival rates of 24.7%% (66/267) and 18.4%% (49/267), respectively. There were no significant differences in one-month survival and neurologically favorable one-month survival in these two primary comparison groups (odds ratio [[95%% confidence interval]], 0.85 [[0.64--1.13]] and 1.04 [[0.76--1.42]], respectively). Logistic regression analysis showed that neither CPR first nor shock first was associated with the rate of one-month survival or neurologically favorable one-month survival, after adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusions. In our study, CPR prior to attempted defibrillation did not present a better outcome compared with shock first as measured by either one-month survival or neurologically favorable one-month survival, after adjusting for potential confounders. Further studies are required to determine whether CPR first has an advantage over shock first.