Petter Andreas Steen

Outcome after cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation is dependent on critical interventions, particularly early defibrillation, effective chest compressions, and advanced life support. Utstein-style definitions and reporting templates have been used extensively in published studies of cardiac arrest, which has led to greater understanding of the elements of resuscitation practice and progress toward international consensus on science and resuscitation guidelines. Despite the development of Utstein templates to standardize research reports of cardiac arrest, international registries have yet to be developed. In April 2002, a task force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) met in Melbourne, Australia, to review worldwide experience with the Utstein definitions and reporting templates. The task force revised the core reporting template and definitions by consensus. Care was taken to build on previous definitions, changing data elements and operational definitions only on the basis of published data and experience derived from those registries that have used Utstein-style reporting. Attention was focused on decreasing the complexity of the existing templates and addressing logistical difficulties in collecting specific core and supplementary (ie, essential and desirable) data elements recommended by previous Utstein consensus conferences. Inconsistencies in terminology between in-hospital and out-of-hospital Utstein templates were also addressed. The task force produced a reporting tool for essential data that can be used for both quality improvement (registries) and research reports and that should be applicable to both adults and children. The revised and simplified template includes practical and succinct operational definitions. It is anticipated that the revised template will enable better and more accurate completion of all reports of cardiac arrest and resuscitation attempts. Problems with data definition, collection, linkage, confidentiality, management, and registry implementation are acknowledged and potential solutions offered. Uniform collection and tracking of registry data should enable better continuous quality improvement within every hospital, emergency medical services system, and community.

CONTEXT: Defibrillation as soon as possible is standard treatment for patients with ventricular fibrillation. A nonrandomized study indicates that after a few minutes of ventricular fibrillation, delaying defibrillation to give cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) first might improve the outcome. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of CPR before defibrillation on outcome in patients with ventricular fibrillation and with response times either up to or longer than 5 minutes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized trial of 200 patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation in Oslo, Norway, between June 1998 and May 2001. Patients received either standard care with immediate defibrillation (n = 96) or CPR first with 3 minutes of basic CPR by ambulance personnel prior to defibrillation (n = 104). If initial defibrillation was unsuccessful, the standard group received 1 minute of CPR before additional defibrillation attempts compared with 3 minutes in the CPR first group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary end point was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary end points were hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-year survival, and neurological outcome. A prespecified analysis examined subgroups with response times either up to or longer than 5 minutes. RESULTS: In the standard group, 14 (15%) of 96 patients survived to hospital discharge vs 23 (22%) of 104 in the CPR first group (P =.17). There were no differences in ROSC rates between the standard group (56% [58/104]) and the CPR first group (46% [44/96]; P =.16); or in 1-year survival (20% [21/104] and 15% [14/96], respectively; P =.30). In subgroup analysis for patients with ambulance response times of either up to 5 minutes or shorter, there were no differences in any outcome variables between the CPR first group (n = 40) and the standard group (n = 41). For patients with response intervals of longer than 5 minutes, more patients achieved ROSC in the CPR first group (58% [37/64]) compared with the standard group (38% [21/55]; odds ratio [OR], 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.63; P =.04); survival to hospital discharge (22% [14/64] vs 4% [2/55]; OR, 7.42; 95% CI, 1.61-34.3; P =.006); and 1-year survival (20% [13/64] vs 4% [2/55]; OR, 6.76; 95% CI, 1.42-31.4; P =.01). Thirty-three (89%) of 37 patients who survived to hospital discharge had no or minor reductions in neurological status with no difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard care for ventricular fibrillation, CPR first prior to defibrillation offered no advantage in improving outcomes for this entire study population or for patients with ambulance response times shorter than 5 minutes. However, the patients with ventricular fibrillation and ambulance response intervals longer than 5 minutes had better outcomes with CPR first before defibrillation was attempted. These results require confirmation in additional randomized trials.