Objective Delivery of prehospital defibrillation for shockable rhythms by emergency medical service providers is crucial for successful resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. The optimal range of prehospital defibrillation attempts for refractory shockable rhythms is unknown. This study evaluated the association between the number of prehospital defibrillation attempts and neurologic outcomes in OHCA patients.Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted using the nationwide OHCA registry. Adult OHCA patients who were treated by emergency medical service providers due to presumed cardiac origin with initial shockable rhythm were enrolled from 2013 to 2016. The final analysis was performed on patients without on-scene return of spontaneous circulation. The number of prehospital defibrillation attempts was categorized as follows: 2-3, 4-5, and ≥ 6 attempts. The primary outcome was a good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between neurologic outcomes and the number of prehospital defibrillation attempts.Results A total of 4,513 patients were included in the final analysis. The numbers of patients for whom 2-3, 4-5, and ≥ 6 defibrillation attempts were made were 2,720 (60.3%), 1,090 (24.2%), and 703 (15.5%), respectively. Poorer outcomes were associated with ≥ 6 defibrillation attempts: survival to hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.65) and good neurologic recovery (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.84). ConclusionSix or more prehospital defibrillation attempts were associated with poorer neurologic outcomes in OHCA patients with an initial shockable rhythm who were unresponsive to on-scene defibrillation and resuscitation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Aim of the study: Effective CPR training is important for provision of high-quality bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has hindered conventional face-to-face CPR training. To overcome the limitation, we developed a distance learning CPR training course (HEROS-Remote) that utilized a smartphone app and a delivery-collection system for CPR training manikins. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of the HEROS-Remote course by comparing chest compression quality between trainees who participated in the conventional CPR training (C-training) and HEROS-Remote course (R-training). Methods: The non-inferiority trial included adult nonhealthcare providers who applied for CPR training. Both groups underwent 2-minute post-training chest compression test followed by course survey on trainees’ course and delivery system satisfaction. The primary outcome of the study was mean chest compression depth during the 2-minute post-training test. Results: A total of 180 trainees were enrolled with 90 trainees for each training group. There was no statistically significant difference in chest compression depth between R-training and C-training groups (67.4 vs. 67.8, p=0.78) as well as proportion of adequate chest compression depth, chest compression rate, proportion of chest compressions with complete chest recoil and chest compression score (90.8 vs. 92.1, p=0.69; 110.8 vs. 110.4, p=0.60; 89.8 vs. 94.7, p=0.05; 92.7 vs. 95.5, p=0.16, respectively). In the R-training group, 90.0% of the trainees were satisfied with the course, 96% responded that the delivery system was satisfactory and convenient. Conclusion: The R-training course was noninferior to the C-training course. The distance learning CPR training method utilizing smartphone app and mannikin delivery-collection system had high user satisfaction and was logistically feasible.