Evidence Hub

The Impact of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Guidelines Updates Against Out-of-Hospital Shockable Cardiac Arrest: A Population-Based Cohort Study

K. Nagao, N. Yonemoto, D. Gaieski, Tsukasa Yagi, E. Tachibana, N. Ito, S. Shirai, Y. Tahara et al.

Social Science Research Network, 2021

73 participants

Abstract

Background: International cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines based on the best available evidence from resuscitation science have been updated since 2000. However, few nationwide population-based studies have been investigated comprehensive efficacy of those updates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods: From the All-Japan Utstein Registry between 2005 and 2015, we enrolled 73 578 adults who had witnessed shockable (ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia) OHCA. We examined temporal trends over eleven years (2005 on the Guidelines 2000 era, from 2006 to 2010 on the consensus on CPR and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations [CoSTR] 2005 era, and from 2011 to 2015 on the CoSTR 2010 era). The primary end point was favorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category of 1 or 2) at 30 days after OHCA.

Findings: Of 73 578 study patients, 61,080 (83%) were witnessed by bystander and 12 498 (17%) by emergency medical services (EMS) responder. After adjustment for Utstein variables, odds ratios for favorable 30-day neurological outcome increased year by year (reference, 2005): the bystander-witnessed group, 1∙19 (95% CI 1∙03-1∙37) in 2006, 2∙40 (95% CI 2∙10-2∙74) in 2010, 2∙45 (95% CI 2∙14-2∙80) in 2011 and 3∙02 (95% CI 2∙63-3∙46) in 2015; the EMS responder-witnessed group, 1∙27 (95% CI 1∙01-1∙60) in 2007, 1∙28 (95% CI 1∙02-1∙60) in 2010, 1∙54 (95% CI 1∙23-1∙94) in 2011 and 1∙58 (95% CI 1∙26-1∙99)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 73 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free