Elsevier

Resuscitation

Volume 185, April 2023, 109693
Resuscitation

Clinical paper
Clinical outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The minute-by-minute impact of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109693Get rights and content

Abstract

Aims

The time-dependent prognostic role of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients has not been described with great precision, especially for neurologic outcomes. Our objective was to assess the association between bystander CPR, emergency medical service (EMS) response time, and OHCA patients’ outcomes.

Methods

This cohort study used the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Epidemiologic Registries. Bystander-witnessed adult OHCA treated by EMS were included. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and secondary outcome was survival with a good neurologic outcome (modified Rankin scale 0–2). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations and interactions between bystander CPR, EMS response time and clinical outcomes.

Results

Out of 229,637 patients, 41,012 were included (18,867 [46.0%] without bystander CPR and 22,145 [54.0%] with bystander CPR). Bystander CPR was independently associated with higher survival (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.70 [95%CI 1.61–1.80]) and survival with a good neurologic outcome (AOR = 1.87 [95%CI 1.70–2.06]), while longer EMS response times were independently associated with lower survival to hospital discharge (each additional minute of EMS response time: AOR = 0.92 [95%CI 0.91–0.93], p < 0.001) and lower survival with a good neurologic outcome (AOR = 0.88 [95%CI 0.86–0.89], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between bystander CPR and EMS response time’s association with survival (p = 0.12) and neurologic outcomes (p = 0.65).

Conclusions

Although bystander CPR is associated with an immediate increase in odds of survival and of good neurologic outcome for OHCA patients, it does not influence the negative association between longer EMS response time and survival and good neurologic outcome.

Introduction

The disease burden from non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is important, with close to North American 400,000 cases each year and only 10% of treated patients surviving their episode.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Despite a generally poor prognosis, OHCA prognostication remains complex but important since it can influence many important treatment decisions and allows systems optimization for OHCA care.10 Amongst factors of good prognosis, the provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has notably been associated with improved survival and neurologic outcomes for OHCA patients.11, 12, 13, 14, 15 This effect is postulated to be resulting from blood flow restoration, with a consequent decrease in ischemia, but this restoration of blood flow has only been directly described in patients receiving CPR from professionals, usually in the context of an in-hospital cardiac arrest or in animal models.15

Longer delays before the CPR provision have previously been associated with worse outcomes.10, 16, 17 The period (heart arrest to CPR initiation) is referred to as no-flow time (NFT), while the length of time during which CPR is provided is known as low-flow time (LFT).18, 19, 20 The general association between bystander CPR and good clinical outcomes is well recognized, but the time-dependent prognostic role of bystander CPR has not been described with great precision, especially for neurologic outcomes.16, 17, 21 Longer delays before emergency medical services (EMS) arrival (EMS response time) have also been associated with worse outcomes.17, 22 As such, the benefits of the provision of a definite amount of bystander CPR, transforming the length of time which would have been NFT into bystander LFT (BLFT), to mitigate EMS response time is uncertain.

A better understanding of these dynamics could guide future interventions aiming to improve the rate of bystander CPR or EMS response times and our ability to prognosticate OHCA patients. Therefore, this study’s objective is to evaluate the association between bystander CPR, EMS response time, and clinical outcomes of OHCA patients.

Section snippets

Study design and setting

This cohort study was derived from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) OHCA registry (ROC Epistry) Version 1 and 2 (December 1st, 2005 to April 1st, 2010) and 3 (April 1st, 2011 to June 30th, 2015), which included cases assessed by EMS in the out-of-hospital setting who: a) underwent either EMS-performed chest compressions or had a shock delivered by a bystander-applied automated external defibrillator; or b) were found pulseless by EMS personnel, but did not receive treatment.23

Cohort description

A total of 229,632 patients were logged in the registries, from whom 41,012 (17.9%) met inclusion and exclusion criteria (Fig. 1). A total of 18,867 patients (46.0%) did not receive bystander CPR and had a median EMS response time (or NFT) of 7.9 min (IQR 6.1–10.0). A total of 22,145 patients (54.0%) received bystander CPR and had a median EMS response time (or BLFT) of 7.8 min (IQR 6.0–9.9). Their demographic and clinical characteristics are presented in Table 1. Notably, patients with shorter

Discussion

In this large multicenter analysis of bystander-witnessed OHCA, we observed that bystander CPR was strongly associated with good clinical outcomes. However, bystander CPR did not mitigate the negative association between longer EMS response time and clinical outcomes (-8% per minute for survival and −12% per minute for survival with a good neurologic outcome). Outcomes were still significantly better for those with bystander CPR when comparing patients with similar EMS response time in all time

Conclusions

Bystander CPR is associated with an immediate increase in the odds of survival to hospital discharge and of survival with a good neurologic outcome for OHCA patients, which could partly be attributed to bystander-provided defibrillation. However, bystander CPR did not influence the negative association between longer EMS response time and clinical outcomes, albeit patients receiving bystander CPR had significantly higher rates of good outcomes in all time categories. Future studies should

Author Affiliations

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine (Cournoyer, Lessard, Chauny, Morris, Castonguay, Daoust); Department of Medicine (Cavayas, Albert, Potter); Department of Surgery (Lamarche); and Faculty of Nursing (Cossette), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. Department of Emergency Medicine (Cournoyer, Segal, Lessard, Chauny, Morris, Castonguay, Daoust); Department of Medicine (Cavayas, Albert); Department of Surgery (Lamarche); and Research Center (Cournoyer,

Author Contributions

Dr Cournoyer had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Cournoyer, Chauny, Paquet, Marquis, Cossette, Castonguay, Morris, Lessard, Daoust.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting the manuscript: Cournoyer.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Cournoyer, Paquet.

Obtained funding:

Funding/Support

This project received funding from the ‘Fonds des Urgentistes de l’Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal’ and the ‘Département de médecine familiale et de médecine d’urgence de l’Université de Montréal’.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor

The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Financial support

This project received funding from the ‘Département de médecine familiale et de médecine d’urgence de l’Université de Montréal’ and the ‘Fonds des Urgentistes de l’Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal’. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflict of interest

Dr Cheskes has receiving funding from Zoll Medical and Stryker Corporation for educational speaking on CPR Quality. Dr Cheskes has received investigator-initiated research funding from Zoll Medical for research studies. The other authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) is supported by a series of cooperative agreements with 10 regional clinical centres and one data Coordinating Centre (5U01HL077863,HL077881, HL077871, HL077872, HL077866, HL077908, HL077867, HL077885, HL077887, HL077873,HL077865) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in partnership with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, U.S. Army, Medical Research & Material Command, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research _

References (45)

  • A. Chalkias et al.

    Post-cardiac arrest brain injury: Pathophysiology and treatment

    J Neurol Sci

    (2012)
  • D. Hightower et al.

    Decay in quality of closed-chest compressions over time

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1995)
  • S.M. Fernando et al.

    Analysis of bystander CPR quality during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using data derived from automated external defibrillators

    Resuscitation

    (2018)
  • G. Pachys et al.

    Predictors of long-term survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the impact of Activities of Daily Living and Cerebral Performance Category scores

    Resuscitation

    (2014)
  • B. Zakhary et al.

    Predictors of mortality after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

    Crit Care Resusc

    (2018)
  • C. Vaillancourt et al.

    Socioeconomic status influences bystander CPR and survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims

    Resuscitation

    (2008)
  • A. Guy et al.

    The relationship between no-flow interval and survival with favourable neurological outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Implications for outcomes and ECPR eligibility

    Resuscitation

    (2020)
  • C.E. Stoesser et al.

    Moderating effects of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest characteristics on the association between EMS response time and survival

    Resuscitation

    (2021)
  • D. Mozaffarian et al.

    American Heart Association Statistics C and Stroke Statistics S. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association

    Circulation

    (2015)
  • M.J. Gardner et al.

    Prevention of sudden death from ventricular arrhythmia

    Epidemiol Can J Cardiol

    (2000)
  • E.J. Benjamin et al.

    American Heart Association Council on E, Prevention Statistics C and Stroke Statistics S. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

    Circulation

    (2019)
  • S.S. Virani et al.

    American Heart Association Council on E, Prevention Statistics C and Stroke Statistics S. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

    Circulation

    (2021)
  • Cited by (5)

    View full text