Impact of defibrillation with automated external defibrillator by bystander before defibrillation by emergency medical system personnel on neurological outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with non-cardiac etiology

Akira Komori; Hiroki Iriyama; Toshikazu Abe

doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100363

Impact of defibrillation with automated external defibrillator by bystander before defibrillation by emergency medical system personnel on neurological outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with non-cardiac etiology

Resusc Plus. 2023 Feb 7:13:100363. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100363. eCollection 2023 Mar.

Authors

Akira Komori^{1

2

3}, Hiroki Iriyama^{1

2

3}, Toshikazu Abe^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Tsukuba Memorial Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan.
² Department of General Medicine, Juntendo University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
³ Health Services Research and Development Center, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.

Abstract

Aim of the study: Although defibrillation using automated external defibrillator (AED) by bystander prior to emergency medical system (EMS) arrival was associated with favorable outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of cardiac cause, whether it improves outcomes of OHCA due to non-cardiac cause is not clear. We aimed to investigate the impact of defibrillation with AED by bystander before defibrillation by EMS personnel on the outcomes of OHCA of presumed non-cardiac cause.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the All-Japan Utstein registry (reference period: 2013 to 2017). We included adult patients with OHCA of presumed non-cardiac cause, who had initial shockable rhythm, and who received witnessed arrest bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Exposure variable was defibrillation with AED by bystander in comparison with initial defibrillation by EMS. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between bystander AED shock and favorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category scale 1 or 2) at one month.

Results: Among the 1,053 patients included for analysis, 57 (5.4%) received bystander AED shock. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of favorable neurological outcome at one month between groups [9 (15.8%) vs 109 (10.9%), p = 0.26]. Logistic regression analysis adjusted for characteristics, intervention, and time course of CPR showed no association between bystander AED shock and favorable neurological outcome [OR (95% CI): 1.63 (0.70-3.77), p = 0.25].

Conclusion: In this study, defibrillation with AED by bystander before defibrillation by EMS personnel was not associated with the favorable outcomes of OHCA of presumed non-cardiac cause.

Keywords: Automated external defibrillator; Defibrillation; Favorable neurological outcome; Non-cardiac cause; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.