ArticleOpen heart2026
Incidence of refibrillation and shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation during OHCA when treated with a public access defibrillator: implications for CPR timing in lay rescuer-treated OHCA.
Article in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treatment often requires multiple defibrillatory shocks due to failed defibrillation or refibrillation. The complete nature of refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) is unknown, as many studies do not consider shocks delivered by lay rescuers prior to the arrival of basic life support (BLS)/advanced life support (ALS) when quantifying refractory VF. ERC guidelines define refractory VF as continuous VF after three consecutive shocks, not differentiating between patients who refibrillate and those with shock-resistant VF (three consecutive failed shocks) which may contribute to this variation in reported incidence. There are some differences in treatment recommendations for patients who refibrillate and those with shock-resistant VF. Therefore, understanding the number of shocks delivered by lay-rescuers with public access defibrillators (PADs) and the patient's response to them prior to BLS/ALS arrival may inform treatment strategies.
methodsECG data collected retrospectively from OHCAs treated by lay-rescuers using PADs were analysed. Cardiac rhythm, shock success, refibrillation, time to refibrillation and presence of shock-resistant VF (three consecutive failed shocks) were determined by two investigators.
resultsData were available for 1459 patients receiving at least one shock. Refibrillation occurred in 498 (34.1%) patients. The median number of refibrillations per patient was 1 (IQR 1, 2). Median time to refibrillation was 29.8 s. Three consecutive shocks were observed in 231 of the 1459 (15.8%) patients, 11 patients (4.8% of 231 patients) had shock-resistant VF.
conclusionWhen treated by lay-rescuers with PADs, refibrillation occurrence is lower than that reported for patients treated by BLS/ALS. However, aligned with BLS/ALS studies, in lay-rescuer treated OHCA, refibrillation typically occurs within the first 30 s following a successful shock. Therefore, patients who refibrillate are typically in VF for an additional 1.5 min before receiving a subsequent shock for PADs with a 2 min cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) cycle. This finding emphasises the need for investigation into optimal CPR duration for patients requiring multiple shocks.
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.