RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Time to initial treatment is important in any response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The purpose of this paper was to quantify the time delay for providing initial EMS treatments supplemented by comparison with those of other EMS systems conducting clinical trials. METHODS: Data were collected between 1/1/16-2/15/19. Dispatched, EMS-worked, adult OHCA cases occurring before EMS arrival were included and compared with published treatment time data. Response time and time-to-treatment intervals were profiled in both groups. Time intervals were calculated by subtracting the following timepoints from 9-1-1 call receipt: ambulance in route; at curb; patient contact; first defibrillation; first epinephrine; and first antiarrhythmic. RESULTS: 342 subjects met study inclusion/exclusion. Mean time intervals (min [95%CI]) from 9-1-1 call receipt to the following EMS endpoints were: dispatch 0.1 [0.05-0.2]; at curb 5.0 [4.5, 5.5]; at patient 6.7 [6.1, 7.2];, first defibrillation initially shockable 11.7 [10.1, 13.3]; first epinephrine (initially shockable 15.0 [12.8, 17.2], initially non-shockable 14.8 [13.5, 15.9]), first antiarrhythmic 25.1 [22.0, 28.2]. These findings were similar to data in 5 published clinical trials involving 12,954 subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Delay to EMS treatments are common and may affect clinical outcomes. Neither Utstein out-of-hospital guidelines [1] nor U.S. Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) databases require capture of these elements. EMS is often not providing treatments quickly enough to optimize clinical outcomes. Further regulatory change/research are needed to determine whether OHCA outcome can be improved by novel changes such as enhancing bystander effectiveness through drone-delivered drugs/devices & real-time dispatcher direction on their use.
