ars.els-cdn.com · web view11.mcnally b, robb r, mehta m, vellano k, valderrama al, yoon pw, et al....

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

eFigure 1. Forest plot when including the Public-Access Defibrillation trial

eTable 1. Protocol changes

eTable 2. Full search strategies

eTable 3. Risk of bias in included observational studies

eTable 4. Risk of bias in included randomized clinical trials

eTable 5. GRADE overview: Observational studies – all rhythms

eTable 6. GRADE overview: Observational studies – shockable rhythms

eTable 7. GRADE overview: Observational studies – non-Shockable rhythms

eTable 8. GRADE overview: Randomized clinical trials

eAppendix 1. PRISMA checklist

eAppendix 2. Original protocol

eAppendix 3. EXCEL: Detailed overview of observational studies

eAppendix 4. EXCEL: Detailed overview of randomized trials

eAppendix 5. EXCEL: Detailed overview of cost-effectiveness studies

Abbreviations for eAppendix 3-5:

OHCA, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; EMS, emergency medical services; DNR, do-not-resuscitate; CPR,

cardiopulmonary resuscitation; AED, automated external defibrillator; PAD, public-access defibrillation; CPC,

cerebral performance category; NR, not reported; NA, not applicable

1

eFigure 1. Forest plot when including the Public-Access Defibrillation trial

Forest plot for survival and favorable neurological outcome in patients with all rhythms when including the

Public-Access Defibrillation (PAD) trial. Since no odds ratio was provided in the original PAD trial, it was

calculated based on available data. In the first analysis (A and B), we calculated the odds ratio while accounting

for potential ascertainment bias in the trial as done by the investigators.(1) We calculated the proportion with

a positive outcome in each group using the number of patients with positive outcomes as the numerator and

the number of definite cardiac arrests in the intervention group as the denominator for both groups. In the

second analysis (C and D), we ignored any potential ascertainment bias and used the actual proportion with

positive outcomes in each group. Results of the meta-analysis did not meaningfully change when the PAD trial

was included.

3

eTable 1. Protocol changes

Domain Change Rational

Title Changed the title to “Bystander Automated External Defibrillation Use and Clinical Outcomes after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”

For clarification

PICO Added “Bystander” to intervention and comparator

For clarification

Inclusion criteria

Included trained first responders (e.g. police and firefighters) for randomized clinical trials

Trained first responders may provide indirect evidence for the main PICO

Exclusion criteria

Excluded studies with less than five exposed patients and studies based on surveys

Likely high risk of bias in these studies and difficult to interpret the findings

Screening Third reviewer screened titles and abstract excluded after the first screening phase

Not necessary to screen included articles as those would be reviewed as full text articles. Assessing those articles initially excluded ensures optimal caption of relevant articles i.e. high sensitivity

GRADE Did not use GRADEpro (McMaster University, 2014) for drafting of GRADE tables

Practical reasons

4

eTable 2. Full search strategy

Medline

(external defibrillator*[tw] OR external defibrillation*[tw] OR public access defibrillation[tw] OR public access defibrillator*[tw] OR public defibrillation[tw] OR public defibrillator*[tw] OR automatic emergency defibrillator*[tw] OR automated emergency defibrillator*[tw] OR automatic external cardioverter-defibrillator*[tw] OR automated external cardioverter-defibrillator*[tw] OR automatic external cardioverter*[tw] OR automated external cardioverter*[tw] OR AED[tw] OR PAD[tw] OR AECD[tw] OR (defibrillators[mesh] AND external[tw]) OR ((defibrillat*[tw] OR cardioverter*[tw]) AND (lay person*[tw] OR lay responder*[tw] OR layperson*[tw] OR bystander*[tw] OR layman[tw] OR laywomen[tw] OR laymen[tw] OR laywoman[tw] OR first responder*[tw]))) AND (heart arrest*[mesh] OR cardiac arrest*[tw] OR sudden cardiac death[mesh] OR return of spontaneous circulation[tw] OR ROSC[tw] OR cardiovascular arrest*[tw] OR asystole[tw] OR pulseless electrical activity[tw] OR ventricular fibrillation[mesh] OR pulseless ventricular tachycardia[tw] OR cardiopulmonary arrest*[tw] OR advanced cardiac life support[mesh] OR ACLS[tw] OR cardiopulmonary resuscitation[mesh] OR CPR[tw] OR heart massage[tw] OR cardiac massage[tw] OR chest compression*[tw]) NOT (letter[publication type] OR comment[publication type] OR editorial[publication type])

Embase

((((‘defibrillation’/exp OR ‘defibrillator’/exp) AND (‘external’:ab,ti OR ‘public’:ab,ti OR ‘automated’:ab,ti OR ‘automatic’:ab,ti)) OR (‘AED’:ab,ti OR ‘AECD’:ab,ti)) AND ('heart arrest':ab,ti OR 'out of hospital cardiac arrest'/exp OR 'cardiopulmonary arrest':ab,ti OR 'cardiovascular arrest':ab,ti OR 'return of spontaneous circulation':ab,ti OR ROSC OR 'pulseless ventricular tachycardia':ab,ti OR 'heart ventricle fibrillation':ab,ti OR 'ventricular fibrillation':ab,ti OR 'pulseless electrical activity':ab,ti OR ‘asystole’:ab,ti OR 'heart massage':ab,ti OR 'cardiac massage':ab,ti OR 'chest compression':ab,ti OR ‘cardiopulmonary resuscitation’:ab,ti OR ‘CPR’:ab,ti)) NOT ('letter':it OR 'editorial':it OR 'note':it OR 'conference abstract':it)

The Cochrane Library

(MeSH descriptor: [Defibrillators] explode all trees) AND (MeSH descriptor: [Heart Arrest] explode all trees)

The Web of Science

(TS=(”external defibrillat*” OR “public access defibrillat*” OR “emergency defibrillat*” OR “external cardioverter defibrillat*” OR “AED” OR “AECD”)) AND (TS=("out-of-hospital cardiac arrest*” OR “heart arrest*" OR "cardiac arrest*" OR "cardiovascular arrest*" OR "cardiopulmonary arrest*" OR "return of spontaneous circulation" OR "ROSC" OR "asystole" OR "pulseless electrical activity" OR "ventricular fibrillation" OR "pulseless ventricular tachycardia" OR "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" OR "CPR" OR "heart massage" OR "cardiac massage" OR "chest compression" OR "advanced cardiac life support" OR "ACLS")) NOT (DT=(“letter” OR “note” OR “editorial material”))

5

eTable 3. Risk of bias in included observational studies

Study Confoundinga Selection Classification of

Intervention

Deviation from

intended intervention

Missing data

Outcomes Selective reporting

Overall

Kuisma, 2003 (2) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Culley, 2004 (3) Critical Low Moderatec Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Becker, 2008 (4) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Colquhoun,2008 (5) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Cady, 2009 (6) Serious Low Moderatec Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Berdowski, 2010 (7) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Kitamura, 2010 (8) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Weisfeldt, 2010 (9) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Berdowski, 2011 (10) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

McNally, 2011 (11) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Weisfeldt, 2011 (12) Critical Low Low Low Moderated Low Moderate Critical

Kitamura, 2012 (13) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Nakamura, 2012 (14) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Akahane, 2013 (15) Serious Low Low Low Low Moderatee Moderate Serious

Drezner, 2013 (16) Critical Moderateb Moderatec Low Moderated Moderatee Moderate Critical

Maron, 2013 (17) Critical Moderateb Moderatec Low Moderated Low Moderate Critical

Mitani, 2013 (18) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Wissenberg, 2013 (19) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Kim, 2014 (20) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Lijovic,2014 (21) Serious Low Low Low Moderated Low Moderate Serious

Murakami, 2014 (22) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Agerskov, 2015 (23) Critical Low Moderatec Low Low Low Moderate Critical

6

eTable 3. Risk of bias in included observational studies (continued)

Study Confoundinga Selection Classification of

Intervention

Deviation from

intended intervention

Missing data

Outcomes Selective reporting

Overall

Bouland, 2015 (24) Critical Low Moderatec Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Chen, 2015 (25) Critical Low Moderatec Low Moderated Low Moderate Critical

Hansen, 2015 (26) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical


Lai, 2015 (28) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Nakahara, 2015 (29) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Nishi, 2015 (30) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Ringh, 2015 (31) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Capucci, 2016 (32) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Durand, 2016 (33) Critical Low Moderatec Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Kitamura, 2016 (34) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Kiyohara, 2016 (35) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Claesson, 2017 (36) Critical Low Low Low Moderated Low Moderate Critical

Fan, 2017 (37) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Fan,2017 (38) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Fukuda, 2017 (39) Serious Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Serious

Garcia, 2017 (40) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical


Karam,2017 (42) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Kiyohara,2017 (43) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Kragholm,2017 (44) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

Yamaguchi,2017 (45) Critical Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Critical

7

a Risk of bias from confounding was considered critical when confounding was not inherently controlled for (i.e. no or very limited adjustment) and serious when at least one known important domain was not appropriately measured or controlled for. Adjusting for a mediator of the relationship between AED use and outcomes (e.g. time to first defibrillation) also resulted in a higher risk of bias. b Selection of participants into the study may have been related to intervention and outcomec Some aspects of the assignments of intervention status were determined retrospectively d Proportions of and reasons for missing participants might differ across interventions groupse There may have been some errors in measuring the outcome that was related to intervention status

8

eTable 4. Risk of bias in included randomized clinical trials

Study Random sequence

generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants/personnel

Blinding of outcome

assessment

Incomplete outcome

data

Selective reporting

Other bias

Overall

Alem, 2003 (46) Uncleara Unclearb Unclearc Low Low Low Low Unclear

PAD, 2004 (47) Uncleara Unclearb Unclearc Low Low Low Uncleard Unclear

Bardy, 2008 (48) Uncleara Unclearb Low Low Low Low Low Unclear

a Method of randomization not providedb Details on allocation concealment not providedc No blinding of participants and personnel and unclear whether this could have biased the results. The non-blinding in the Bardy et al. trial was not considered to introduce bias.d Some imbalances in baseline characteristics with more volunteers trained in the AED group which could have been a potential reason for the larger number of volunteers responding in the AED group. It is unclear whether the increased number of cardiac arrest in the AED group was entirely due to the intervention (i.e. ascertainment bias). It is unclear whether these issues could have biased the results.

9

eTable 5. GRADE overview: Observational studies – all rhythms

No. of patients and studies

Risk of Bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Othera Overall

Survival to hospital discharge/30 days

29,569 patients3 studies(6, 9, 35)

Very seriousb Not serious Not serious Not serious None Very low quality

Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge/30 days

12,333 patients2 studies(10, 35)

Very seriousb Not serious Not serious Not serious None Very low quality

Return of spontaneous circulation

15,800 patients2 studies(6, 35)

Very seriousb Not serious Not serious Seriousc None Very low quality

a Includes assessment of publication bias, magnitude of the effect, dose-response gradient, and plausible residual confounding leading to spurious effect when no effect was observed or reduction of a demonstrated effect.b High risk of confounding (see eTable 3) c 95% confidence intervals include both potential harm and potential benefit

10

eTable 6. GRADE overview: Observational studies – shockable rhythms



Survival to hospital discharge/30 days

46,032 patients2 studies(21, 34) Very seriousb Not serious Not serious Not serious None Very low

quality


46,117 patients2 studies(10, 34) Very seriousb Not serious Not serious Not serious None Very low

quality

Return of spontaneous circulation

43,762 patients1 study(34) Very seriousb Not applicable Not serious Not serious None Very low

quality

a Includes assessment of publication bias, magnitude of the effect, dose-response gradient, and plausible residual confounding leading to spurious effect when no effect was observed or reduction of a demonstrated effect.b High risk of confounding (see eTable 3)

11

eTable 7. GRADE overview: Observational studies – non-shockable rhythms




2,355 patients1 study(10) Very seriousb Not applicable Not serious Very seriousc None Very low

quality

a Includes assessment of publication bias, magnitude of the effect, dose-response gradient, and plausible residual confounding leading to spurious effect when no effect was observed or reduction of a demonstrated effect.b High risk of confounding (see eTable 3)c 95% confidence intervals include both potential harm and potential benefit

12

eTable 8. GRADE overview: Randomized clinical trials

No. of patients and studies Risk of Bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Othera Overall

Survival to hospital discharge

235 patients1 study(47) Seriousb Not applicable Not serious Seriousc None Low

quality

Favorable neurological outcome

235 patients1 study(47) Seriousb Not applicable Not serious Seriousc None Low

quality

a Includes assessment of publication bias, magnitude of the effect, dose-response gradient, and plausible residual confounding leading to spurious effect when no effect was observed or reduction of a demonstrated effect.b See eTable 4c Total sample size lower than the optimal information size of 828 patients.(49) The optimal information size was calculated using Fisher’s Exact test and assuming a survival rate of 11% in the control group(50), a relative risk of 1.75, an alpha of 0.05, and 90% power. If a relative risk of 2.0 is assumed instead, the optimal information size is 504 patients.

13

REFERENCES

1. Nichol G, Huszti E, Birnbaum A, Mahoney B, Weisfeldt M, Travers A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lay

responder defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(2):226-35 e1-2.

2. Kuisma M, Castren M, Nurminen K. Public access defibrillation in Helsinki--costs and potential benefits

from a community-based pilot study. Resuscitation. 2003;56(2):149-52.

3. Culley LL, Rea TD, Murray JA, Welles B, Fahrenbruch CE, Olsufka M, et al. Public access defibrillation in

out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a community-based study. Circulation. 2004;109(15):1859-63.

4. Becker L, Gold LS, Eisenberg M, White L, Hearne T, Rea T. Ventricular fibrillation in King County,

Washington: a 30-year perspective. Resuscitation. 2008;79(1):22-7.

5. Colquhoun MC, Chamberlain DA, Newcombe RG, Harris R, Harris S, Peel K, et al. A national scheme for

public access defibrillation in England and Wales: early results. Resuscitation. 2008;78(3):275-80.

6. Cady CE, Weaver MD, Pirrallo RG, Wang HE. Effect of emergency medical technician-placed

Combitubes on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13(4):495-9.

7. Berdowski J, Kuiper MJ, Dijkgraaf MG, Tijssen JG, Koster RW. Survival and health care costs until

hospital discharge of patients treated with onsite, dispatched or without automated external defibrillator.

Resuscitation. 2010;81(8):962-7.

8. Kitamura T, Iwami T, Kawamura T, Nagao K, Tanaka H, Hiraide A, et al. Nationwide public-access

defibrillation in Japan. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(11):994-1004.

9. Weisfeldt ML, Sitlani CM, Ornato JP, Rea T, Aufderheide TP, Davis D, et al. Survival after application of

automatic external defibrillators before arrival of the emergency medical system: evaluation in the

resuscitation outcomes consortium population of 21 million. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(16):1713-20.

10. Berdowski J, Blom MT, Bardai A, Tan HL, Tijssen JG, Koster RW. Impact of onsite or dispatched

automated external defibrillator use on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation.

2011;124(20):2225-32.

11. McNally B, Robb R, Mehta M, Vellano K, Valderrama AL, Yoon PW, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

surveillance --- Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), United States, October 1, 2005--December

31, 2010. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2011;60(8):1-19.

12. Weisfeldt ML, Everson-Stewart S, Sitlani C, Rea T, Aufderheide TP, Atkins DL, et al. Ventricular

tachyarrhythmias after cardiac arrest in public versus at home. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(4):313-21.

13. Kitamura T, Iwami T, Kawamura T, Nitta M, Nagao K, Nonogi H, et al. Nationwide improvements in

survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Japan. Circulation. 2012;126(24):2834-43.

14. Nakamura F, Hayashino Y, Nishiuchi T, Kakudate N, Takegami M, Yamamoto Y, et al. Contribution of

out-of-hospital factors to a reduction in cardiac arrest mortality after witnessed ventricular fibrillation or

tachycardia. Resuscitation. 2013;84(6):747-51.

14

15. Akahane M, Tanabe S, Ogawa T, Koike S, Horiguchi H, Yasunaga H, et al. Characteristics and outcomes

of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by scholastic age category. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2013;14(2):130-6.

16. Drezner JA, Toresdahl BG, Rao AL, Huszti E, Harmon KG. Outcomes from sudden cardiac arrest in US

high schools: a 2-year prospective study from the National Registry for AED Use in Sports. Br J Sports Med.

2013;47(18):1179-83.

17. Maron BJ, Haas TS, Ahluwalia A, Garberich RF, Estes NA, Link MS. Increasing survival rate from

commotio cordis. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10(2):219-23.

18. Mitani Y, Ohta K, Yodoya N, Otsuki S, Ohashi H, Sawada H, et al. Public access defibrillation improved

the outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in school-age children: a nationwide, population-based,

Utstein registry study in Japan. Europace. 2013;15(9):1259-66.

19. Wissenberg M, Lippert FK, Folke F, Weeke P, Hansen CM, Christensen EF, et al. Association of national

initiatives to improve cardiac arrest management with rates of bystander intervention and patient survival after

out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2013;310(13):1377-84.

20. Kim JH, Uhm TH. Survival to admission after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Seoul, South Korea. Open

Access Emerg Med. 2014;6:63-8.

21. Lijovic M, Bernard S, Nehme Z, Walker T, Smith K, Committee VACARS. Public access defibrillation—

results from the Victorian Ambulance Cardiac Arrest Registry. Resuscitation. 2014;85(12):1739-44.

22. Murakami Y, Iwami T, Kitamura T, Nishiyama C, Nishiuchi T, Hayashi Y, et al. Outcomes of out-of-

hospital cardiac arrest by public location in the public-access defibrillation era. J Am Heart Assoc.

2014;3(2):e000533.

23. Agerskov M, Nielsen AM, Hansen CM, Hansen MB, Lippert FK, Wissenberg M, et al. Public Access

Defibrillation: Great benefit and potential but infrequently used. Resuscitation. 2015;96:53-8.

24. Bouland AJ, Risko N, Lawner BJ, Seaman KG, Godar CM, Levy MJ. The Price of a Helping Hand: Modeling

the Outcomes and Costs of Bystander CPR. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(4):524-34.

25. Chen CC, Chen CW, Ho CK, Liu IC, Lin BC, Chan TC. Spatial Variation and Resuscitation Process Affecting

Survival after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests (OHCA). PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0144882.

26. Hansen CM, Kragholm K, Granger CB, Pearson DA, Tyson C, Monk L, et al. The role of bystanders, first

responders, and emergency medical service providers in timely defibrillation and related outcomes after out-

of-hospital cardiac arrest: Results from a statewide registry. Resuscitation. 2015;96:303-9.

27. Malta Hansen C, Kragholm K, Pearson DA, Tyson C, Monk L, Myers B, et al. Association of Bystander

and First-Responder Intervention With Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in North Carolina, 2010-

2013. JAMA. 2015;314(3):255-64.

15

28. Lai H, Choong CV, Fook-Chong S, Ng YY, Finkelstein EA, Haaland B, et al. Interventional strategies

associated with improvements in survival for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Singapore over 10 years.

Resuscitation. 2015;89:155-61.

29. Nakahara S, Tomio J, Ichikawa M, Nakamura F, Nishida M, Takahashi H, et al. Association of Bystander

Interventions With Neurologically Intact Survival Among Patients With Bystander-Witnessed Out-of-Hospital

Cardiac Arrest in Japan. JAMA. 2015;314(3):247-54.

30. Nishi T, Takei Y, Kamikura T, Ohta K, Hashimoto M, Inaba H. Improper bystander-performed basic life

support in cardiac arrests managed with public automated external defibrillators. Am J Emerg Med.

2015;33(1):43-9.

31. Ringh M, Jonsson M, Nordberg P, Fredman D, Hasselqvist-Ax I, Håkansson F, et al. Survival after Public

Access Defibrillation in Stockholm, Sweden--A striking success. Resuscitation. 2015;91:1-7.

32. Capucci A, Aschieri D, Guerra F, Pelizzoni V, Nani S, Villani GQ, et al. Community-based automated

external defibrillator only resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Am Heart J. 2016;172:192-

200.

33. Durand G, Tabarly J, Houze-Cerfon C-H, Bounes V. Public Access Defibrillators Use in Public Places out

Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Haute-Garonne Department. Ann. Fr. Med. Urgence 2016. p. 313-21.

34. Kitamura T, Kiyohara K, Sakai T, Matsuyama T, Hatakeyama T, Shimamoto T, et al. Public-Access

Defibrillation and Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Japan. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(17):1649-59.

35. Kiyohara K, Kitamura T, Sakai T, Nishiyama C, Nishiuchi T, Hayashi Y, et al. Public-access AED pad

application and outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Osaka, Japan. Resuscitation. 2016;106:70-5.

36. Claesson A, Herlitz J, Svensson L, Ottosson L, Bergfeldt L, Engdahl J, et al. Defibrillation before EMS

arrival in western Sweden. Am J Emerg Med. 2017.

37. Fan KL, Leung LP, Siu YC. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Hong Kong: a territory-wide study. Hong Kong

Med J. 2017;23(1):48-53.

38. Fan KL, Leung LP. Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest in Residential Care Homes for the Elderly in Hong Kong.

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017:1-6.

39. Fukuda T, Ohashi-Fukuda N, Kobayashi H, Gunshin M, Sera T, Kondo Y, et al. Public access defibrillation

and outcomes after pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017;111:1-7.

40. Garcia EL, Caffrey-Villari S, Ramirez D, Caron JL, Mannhart P, Reuter PG, et al. [Impact of onsite or

dispatched automated external defibrillator use on early survival after sudden cardiac arrest occurring in

international airports]. Presse Med. 2017;46(3):e63-e8.

41. Hansen SM, Hansen CM, Folke F, Rajan S, Kragholm K, Ejlskov L, et al. Bystander Defibrillation for Out-

of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Public vs Residential Locations. JAMA Cardiol. 2017.

16

42. Karam N, Marijon E, Dumas F, Offredo L, Beganton F, Bougouin W, et al. Characteristics and outcomes

of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest according to the time of occurrence. Resuscitation. 2017;116:16-21.

43. Kiyohara K, Sado J, Matsuyama T, Nishiyama C, Kobayashi D, Kiguchi T, et al. Out-of-hospital cardiac

arrests during exercise among urban inhabitants in Japan: Insights from a population-based registry of Osaka

City. Resuscitation. 2017;117:14-7.

44. Kragholm K, Wissenberg M, Mortensen RN, Hansen SM, Malta Hansen C, Thorsteinsson K, et al.

Bystander Efforts and 1-Year Outcomes in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1737-47.

45. Yamaguchi Y, Woodin JA, Gibo K, Zive DM, Daya MR. Improvements in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Survival from 1998 to 2013. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017:1-12.

46. van Alem AP, Vrenken RH, de Vos R, Tijssen JG, Koster RW. Use of automated external defibrillator by

first responders in out of hospital cardiac arrest: prospective controlled trial. BMJ. 2003;327(7427):1312.

47. Hallstrom AP, Ornato JP, Weisfeldt M, Travers A, Christenson J, McBurnie MA, et al. Public-access

defibrillation and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(7):637-46.

48. Bardy GH, Lee KL, Mark DB, Poole JE, Toff WD, Tonkin AM, et al. Home use of automated external

defibrillators for sudden cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(17):1793-804.

49. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the

quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1283-93.

50. Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, Cushman M, Das SR, Deo R, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-

2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135(10):e146-e603.

17

ars.els-cdn.com · web view11.mcnally b, robb r, mehta m, vellano k, valderrama al, yoon pw, et al....

Documents