4.5 Article

Pulseless electrical activity is associated with improved survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with initial non-shockable rhythm

Journal

RESUSCITATION
Volume 133, Issue -, Pages 147-152

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.10.018

Keywords

Cardiac arrest; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; Non-shockable rhythm; Pulseless electrical activity; Asystole; Outcome

Funding

  1. Laerdal foundation for Acute Medicine
  2. Hans-Gabriel and Alice Trolle-Wachtmeister Foundation for Medical Research
  3. National Health Services (Sweden)
  4. Region Skane (Sweden)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe the prevalence, baseline characteristics and factors associated with survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with initial non-shockable rhythm sub-grouped into pulseless electrical activity (PEA) and asystole as presenting rhythm. Methods: The Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation is a prospectively recorded nationwide registry of modified Utstein parameters, including all patients with attempted resuscitation after OHCA. Data between 1990-2016 were analyzed. Results: After exclusions, the study population consisted of 48,707 patients presenting with either PEA or asystole. The proportion of PEA increased from 12% to 22% during the study period with a fivefold increase in 30-day survival reaching 4.9%. Survival in asystole showed a modest increase from 0.6% to 1.3%. In the multivariable analysis, PEA was independently associated with survival at 30 days (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26-1.88). Conclusion: Between 1990 and 2016, the proportion of PEA as the first recorded rhythm doubled with a fivefold increase in 30-day survival, while survival among patients with asystole remained at low levels. PEA and asystole should be considered separate entities in clinical decision-making and be reported separately in observational studies and clinical trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available