Background: This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of the changes in cardiac arrest rhythms from the prehospital stage to the ED (emergency department) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients without prehospital returns of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).
Methods: This retrospective analysis was performed using nationwide population-based OHCA data from South Korea between 2012 and 2016. Patients with OHCA with medical causes and without prehospital ROSC were included and divided into four groups according to the nature of their cardiac arrest rhythms (shockable or non-shockable) in the prehospital stage and in the ED: (1) the shockable and shockable (Shock-Shock) group, (2) the shockable and non-shockable (Shock-NShock) group, (3) the non-shockable and shockable (NShock-Shock) group, and (4) the non-shockable and non-shockable (NShock-NShock) group. The presence of a shockable rhythm was confirmed based on the delivery of an electrical shock. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess the effect of changes in the cardiac rhythms on patient outcomes. The primary outcome was sustained ROSC in the ED; the secondary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge and good neurological outcomes at hospital discharge.
Results: After applying the exclusion criteria, 51,060 eligible patients were included in the study (Shock-Shock, 4223; Shock-NShock, 3060; NShock-Shock, 11,509; NShock-NShock, 32,268). The propensity score-matched data were extracted from the six comparative subgroups. For sustained ROSC in the ED, Shock-Shock showed a higher likelihood than Shock-NShock (P <0.01) and NShock-NShock (P <0.01), Shock-NShock showed a lower likelihood than NShock-Shock (P <0.01) and NShock-NShock (P <0.01), NShock-Shock showed a higher likelihood NShock-NShock (P <0.01). For survival to hospital discharge, Shock-Shock showed a higher likelihood than Shock-NShock (P <0.01), NShock-Shock (P <0.01), and NShock-NShock (P <0.01), Shock-NShock showed a higher likelihood than NShock-Shock (P <0.01) and NShock-NShock (P <0.01), of sustained ROSC in the ED. For good neurological outcomes, Shock-Shock showed higher likelihood than Shock-NShock (P <0.01), NShock-Shock (P <0.01), and NShock-NShock (P <0.01), Shock-NShock showed better likelihood than NShock-NShock (P <0.01), NShock-Shock showed a better likelihood than NShock-NShock (P <0.01).
Conclusion: Sustained ROSC in the ED may be expected for patients with shockable rhythms in the ED compared with those with non-shockable rhythms in the ED. For the clinical outcomes, survival to hospital discharge and neurological outcomes, patients with Shock-Shock showed the best outcome, whereas patients with NShock-NShock showed the poorest outcome and Shock-NShock showed a higher likelihood of achieving survival to hospital discharge with no significant differences in the neurological outcomes compared with NShock-Shock.