Open Access

Response to: influence of EMS-physician presence on survival after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Critical Care201620:324

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1495-y

Received: 16 August 2016

Accepted: 19 September 2016

Published: 12 October 2016

Böttiger et al. [1] present a meta-analysis demonstrating improved outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) attended by emergency medical services (EMS) physicians, when compared with attendance by paramedics. Because the meta-analysis is based solely on observational studies, we wonder whether a narrative review of the literature would have allowed the reader to reach a more balanced understanding of the available evidence.

There is significant heterogeneity in study sizes, ranging from n = 49 to n = 95,072. Given that the total number of analysed cases is n = 126,829, the study by Yasunaga et al. [2] will inevitably dominate the results.

This is of particular importance for two reasons. Firstly, Yasunaga et al. examined only a subgroup of bystander-witnessed OHCA in Japan. Secondly, EMS physicians in Japan were provided by individual hospitals. The authors point out that ‘hospitals with [EMS]-physicians typically provide more optimal post-return of spontaneous circulation treatments, including therapeutic hypothermia and percutaneous coronary intervention’ [2]. While the study showed significant survival benefit associated with EMS-physician presence, it is unclear whether this benefit occurs due to advanced pre-hospital or in-hospital treatment.

The same limitations apply to the second largest study (n = 18,462). Hagihara et al. [3] also utilised the national Japanese OHCA database and found improvements in survival with EMS-physician presence. The authors state that their findings ‘need confirming with consideration of in-hospital treatment’.

These two Japanese studies make up nearly 90 % of the cases included in the meta-analysis. Despite this imbalance, Böttiger et al. did not perform sensitivity analysis excluding these two studies because the remaining studies ‘were largely consistent in effect size’ [1]. However, the effect sizes presented for a number of these studies require careful consideration.

The third-largest study by Fischer et al. [4] (n = 4298) is a retrospective analysis of two previous publications, independently describing survival after OHCA in the UK (paramedic-based EMS) and in Germany (physician-based EMS). While survival in Germany was significantly higher, ambulance response times were also shorter in Germany. No information is available on important prognostic factors such as age of patients or percentage of cases with shockable rhythm.

The work by Kojima et al. [5] (n = 4144) is a conference abstract presenting limited information. The authors again used the national Japanese OHCA database and the period of data collection overlaps with both Japanese studies described earlier.

We agree with Böttiger et al. that the individual studies included in the meta-analysis represent the best available evidence. However, we suggest that the benefit of EMS physicians attending OHCA remains uncertain.

Authors’ response

  • Bernd W. Böttiger,
  • Michael Bernhard,
  • Jürgen Knapp and
  • Peter Nagele
  • We thank Dr von Vopelius-Feldt and Dr Benger for their interest and comments on our systematic review and meta-analysis about the positive impact of EMS-physician presence on survival after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation [1].

    They correctly mention significant heterogeneity among the study sizes (ranging from n = 49 to n = 95,072) of patients suffering from OHCA. The pooled sample size with n = 126,829 was dominated by two Japanese studies [2, 3], making up nearly 90 % of all cases included in the meta-analysis. They pointed out that we did not perform a sensitivity analysis which excluded these two studies, both from a large, nationwide Japanese database. We did not present a sensitivity analysis due to the fact that all studies were largely consistent in effect size. The pooled OR for survival-to-hospital discharge for all studies was 2.03 (95 % CI: 1.48–2.79). After excluding both Japanese studies from the meta-analysis, the pooled OR for survival-to-hospital discharge was 2.29 (95 % CI: 1.36–3.87) (Fig. 1). The results were therefore consistent whether or not the Japanese studies were included in our meta-analysis.
    Fig. 1

    Survival to hospital discharge comparing EMS-physician CPR with paramedic-guided CPR after excluding the two Japanese studies. CI confidence interval, EMS emergency medical services

    Second, von Vopelius-Feldt and Benger point out that the study by Fischer et al. [4] did not include prognostic factors, such as age of patients or incidence of shockable rhythm. This observation is correct and it is theoretically possible that prognostic factors between both patient populations might differ. Fischer et al.’s study is therefore one of the methodically less valuable studies included in our analysis, but this is one of the often discussed limitations of a meta-analysis.

    Third, it is correct that the cited publication by Kojima et al. [5] is a conference abstract. To our knowledge the results were not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but guidelines for systematic reviews strongly recommend the inclusion of all available evidence to reduce publication bias.

    A major limitation in this whole scientific field – and as discussed in our publication [1] – is that randomised controlled trails comparing EMS-physician-guided and paramedic-guided CPR in patients suffering from OHCA will not be possible for many reasons. Therefore, all of the available evidence came from observational studies or CPR registries, resulting in an adequate level of evidence. Despite these unavoidable limitations, our systematic review provides the highest and only available evidence for the impressive effectiveness of physician-guided CPR in patients suffering from OHCA today.

    Notes

    Abbreviations

    CI: 

    Confidence interval

    CPR: 

    Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

    EMS: 

    Emergency medical services

    OHCA: 

    Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

    OR: 

    Odds ratio

    Declarations

    Funding

    JvVF holds a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) doctoral research fellowship. The NIHR has not been involved in the preparation of this manuscript.

    Authors’ contributions

    JvVF prepared the first draft of the manuscript. JB revised the manuscript. JvVF and JB have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

    Authors’ Affiliations

    (1)
    Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of England
    (2)
    Academic Department of Emergency Care, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust

    References

    1. Böttiger BW, Bernhard M, Knapp J, Nagele P. Influence of EMS-physician presence on survival after out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;20:4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
    2. Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Tanabe S, et al. Collaborative effects of bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prehospital advanced cardiac life support by physicians on survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a nationwide population-based observational study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R199.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
    3. Hagihara A, Hasegawa M, Abe T, Nagata T, Nabeshima Y. Physician presence in an ambulance car is associated with increased survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a prospective cohort analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9, e84424.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
    4. Fischer M, Krep H, Wierich D, et al. Comparison of the Emergency Medical Services systems of Birmingham and Bonn: process efficacy and cost effectiveness. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2003;38:630–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    5. Kojima S, Matsui K, Seino Y, et al. Abstract 108: A physician onboard the advanced life support unit has a clinical impact on outcome of witnessed patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2010;122:A108.Google Scholar

    Copyright

    © The Author(s). 2016

    Advertisement