|
Hallstrom et al. [11]
|
Herlitz et al. [14]
|
Kajino et al. [15]
|
Olasveemgen et al. [16]
|
Thomas et al. [12]
|
Goto et al. [17]
|
SOS-KANTO Study Group [18]
|
---|
Published year
|
2007
|
2008
|
2008
|
2009
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
Sample size (n)
|
738
|
22,465
|
12,353
|
753
|
6556
|
569,937
|
11,481
|
Response time (minutes)
|
6.0 ± 2.6
|
7 a
|
6.0 ± 2.3
|
7 (3–11) a
|
–
|
7 (5–9)a
|
8.2 ± 3.8
|
Shock delivery timeb (minutes)
|
21.0 ± 8.1
|
–
|
12.3 ± 6.9
|
–
|
–
|
20 (15–27)a
|
13.0 ± 9.8
|
Country
|
USA
|
Sweden
|
Japan
|
Norway
|
USA
|
Japan
|
Japan
|
Subsequent shock (%)
|
22.2
|
26.0
|
3.9
|
13.0
|
18.9
|
4.8
|
4.5
|
Association of subsequent shock with outcomesc
|
Unfavorable outcomes
|
Favorable outcomes
|
Favorable outcomes
|
Favorable outcomes
|
No difference
|
Favorable outcomes
|
Favorable outcomes
|
-
aData are median (interquartile range) for continuous variables
-
bShock delivery time was the interval from the initiation of CPR by EMS providers to the first shock delivery by EMS providers
-
cAssociation of subsequent shock with increased unfavorable or favorable clinical outcome
-
CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, EMS emergency medical service, SOS-KANTO, survey of survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Kanto region