Association Between Defibrillation Using LIFEPAK 15 or ZOLL X Series and Survival Outcomes in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation is essential for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms. This study aimed to investigate if the type of defibrillator used was associated with ROSC in OHCA. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included adult patients with OHCA from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry from 2016 to 2021 with at least 1 defibrillation by the emergency medical services. We used multivariable logistic regression and a difference-in-difference analysis, including all patients with or without emergency medical services shock to assess the causal inference of using the different defibrillator models (LIFEPAK or ZOLL) for OHCA defibrillation. Among 6516 patients, 77% were male, the median age (quartile 1; quartile 3) was 70 (59; 79), and 57% achieved ROSC. In total, 5514 patients (85%) were defibrillated using LIFEPAK (ROSC: 56%) and 1002 patients (15%) were defibrillated using ZOLL (ROSC: 63%). Patients defibrillated using ZOLL had an increased adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for ROSC compared with LIFEPAK (aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.04-1.43]). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.95-1.30]). Patients without emergency medical services defibrillation, but treated by ZOLL-equipped emergency medical services, had a nonsignificant aOR for ROSC compared with LIFEPAK (aOR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.99-1.23]) and the difference-in-difference analysis was not statistically significant (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.91-1.34]). CONCLUSIONS: Defibrillation using ZOLL X Series was associated with increased odds for ROSC compared with defibrillation using LIFEPAK 15 for patients with OHCA. However, a difference-in-difference analysis suggested that other factors may be responsible for the observed association.

Barriers and facilitators for in-hospital resuscitation: A prospective clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Guideline deviations with impact on patient outcomes frequently occur during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, barriers and facilitators for preventing these guideline deviations are understudied. We aimed to characterize challenges occurring during IHCA and identify barriers and facilitators perceived by actual team members immediately following IHCA events. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter clinical study. Following each resuscitation attempt in 6 hospitals over a 4-year period, we immediately sent web-based structured questionnaires to all responding team members, reporting their perceived resuscitation quality, teamwork, and communication and what they perceived as barriers or facilitators. Comments were analyzed using qualitative inductive thematic analysis methodology. RESULTS: We identified 924 resuscitation attempts and 3,698 survey responses were collected including 2,095 qualitative comments (response rate: 65%). Most frequent challenges were overcrowding (27%) and poor ergonomics/choreography of people in the room (17%). Narrative comments aligned into 24 unique barrier and facilitator themes in 4 domains: 6 related to treatment (most prevalent: CPR, rhythm check, equipment), 7 for teamwork (most prevalent: role allocation, crowd control, collaboration with ward staff), 6 for leadership (most prevalent: visible and distinct leader, multiple leaders, leader experience), and 5 for communication (most prevalent: closed loops, atmosphere in room, speaking loud/clear). CONCLUSION: Using novel, immediate after-event survey methodology of individual cardiac arrest team members, we characterized challenges and identified 24 themes within 4 domains that were barriers and facilitators for in-hospital resuscitation teams. We believe this level of detail is necessary to contextualize guidelines and training to facilitate high-quality resuscitation.