ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016
Defibrillation time intervals and outcomes of cardiac arrest in hospital: retrospective cohort study from Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different Ventricular Fibrillation Types in Low-Dimensional Latent Spaces.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Inhospital cardiac arrest - the crucial first 5 min: a simulation study.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2022Article
- [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- What is more important: defibrillation or compression?Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe temporal trends in the time interval between first and second attempts at defibrillation and the association between this time interval and outcomes in patients with persistent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) arrest in hospital.
designRetrospective cohort study
setting172 hospitals in the United States participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, 2004-12.
participantsAdults who received a second defibrillation attempt for persistent VT/VF arrest within three minutes of a first attempt.
interventionsSecond defibrillation attempts categorized as early (time interval of up to and including one minute between first and second defibrillation attempts) or deferred (time interval of more than one minute between first and second defibrillation attempts).
main outcome measureSurvival to hospital discharge.
resultsAmong 2733 patients with persistent VT/VF after the first defibrillation attempt, 1121 (41%) received a deferred second attempt. Deferred second defibrillation for persistent VT/VF increased from 26% in 2004 to 57% in 2012 (P<0.001 for trend). Compared with early second defibrillation, unadjusted patient outcomes were significantly worse with deferred second defibrillation (57.4% v 62.5% for return of spontaneous circulation, 38.4% v 43.6% for survival to 24 hours, and 24.7% v 30.8% for survival to hospital discharge; P<0.01 for all comparisons). After risk adjustment, deferred second defibrillation was not associated with survival to hospital discharge (propensity weighting adjusted risk ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.01; P=0.08; hierarchical regression adjusted 0.92, 0.83 to 1.02; P=0.1).
conclusionsSince 2004, the use of deferred second defibrillation for persistent VT/VF in hospital has doubled. Deferred second defibrillation was not associated with improved survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.