Takashi Kawamura

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether dissemination of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in public places can improve the rate of survival among patients who have had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: From January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007, we conducted a prospective, population-based, observational study involving consecutive patients across Japan who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency responders. We evaluated the effect of nationwide dissemination of public-access AEDs on the rate of survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary outcome measure was the 1-month rate of survival with minimal neurologic impairment. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with a good neurologic outcome. RESULTS: A total of 312,319 adults who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included in the study; 12,631 of these patients had ventricular fibrillation and had an arrest that was of cardiac origin and that was witnessed by bystanders. In 462 of these patients (3.7%), shocks were administered by laypersons with the use of public-access AEDs, and the proportion increased, from 1.2% to 6.2%, as the number of public-access AEDs increased (P<0.001 for trend). Among all patients who had a bystander-witnessed arrest of cardiac origin and who had ventricular fibrillation, 14.4% were alive at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment; among patients who received shocks from public-access AEDs, 31.6% were alive at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment. Early defibrillation, regardless of the type of provider (bystander or emergency-medical-services personnel), was associated with a good neurologic outcome after a cardiac arrest with ventricular fibrillation (adjusted odds ratio per 1-minute increase in the time to administration of shock, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.92; P<0.001). The mean time to shock was reduced from 3.7 to 2.2 minutes, and the annual number of patients per 10 million population who survived with minimal neurologic impairment increased from 2.4 to 8.9 as the number of public-access AEDs increased from fewer than 1 per square kilometer of inhabited area to 4 or more. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide dissemination of public-access AEDs in Japan resulted in earlier administration of shocks by laypersons and in an increase in the 1-month rate of survival with minimal neurologic impairment after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Previous animal and clinical studies suggest that bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation may be superior to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Our hypothesis was that both cardiac-only bystander resuscitation and conventional bystander CPR would improve outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of < or = 15 minutes' duration, whereas the addition of rescue breathing would improve outcomes for cardiac arrests lasting > 15 minutes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We carried out a prospective, population-based, observational study involving consecutive patients with emergency responder resuscitation attempts from May 1, 1998, through April 30, 2003. The primary outcome measure was 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between type of CPR and outcomes. Among the 4902 witnessed cardiac arrests, 783 received conventional CPR, and 544 received cardiac-only resuscitation. Excluding very-long-duration cardiac arrests (> 15 minutes), the cardiac-only resuscitation yielded a higher rate of 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome than no bystander CPR (4.3% versus 2.5%; odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.95), and conventional CPR showed similar effectiveness (4.1%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.60). For the very-long-duration arrests, neurologically favorable 1-year survival was greater in the conventional CPR group, but there were few survivors regardless of the type of bystander CPR (0.3% [2 of 624], 0% [0 of 92], and 2.2% [3 of 139] in the no bystander CPR, cardiac-only CPR, and conventional CPR groups, respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation and conventional CPR are similarly effective for most adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. For very prolonged cardiac arrests, the addition of rescue breathing may be of some help.