Cited by 75Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Variation in survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between emergency medical services agencies

Open access
Okubo, Masashi, Schmicker, Robert H., Wallace, David J., Idris, Ahamed H., Nichol, Graham, Austin, Michael A., Grunau, Brian, Wittwer, Lynn K. +18 more·2018·JAMA Cardiology

Abstract

Importance: Emergency medical services (EMS) deliver essential initial care for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but the extent to which patient outcomes vary between different EMS agencies is not fully understood. Objective: To quantify variation in patient outcomes after OHCA across EMS agencies. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study was conducted in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Epistry, a prospective multicenter OHCA registry at 10 sites in North America. Any adult with OHCA treated by an EMS from April 2011 through June 2015 was included. Data analysis occurred from May 2017 to March 2018. Exposure: Treating EMS agency. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation at emergency department arrival and favorable functional outcome at hospital discharge (defined as a modified Rankin scale score ≤3). Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models were used to adjust confounders and clustering of patients within EMS agencies, and calculated median odds ratios (MORs) were used to quantify the extent of residual variation in outcomes between EMS agencies. Results: We identified 43 656 patients with OHCA treated by 112 EMS agencies. At EMS agency level, we observed large variations in survival to hospital discharge (range, 0%-28.9%; unadjusted MOR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.34-1.54]), return of spontaneous circulation on emergency department arrival (range, 9.0%-57.1%; unadjusted MOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.43-1.65]), and favorable functional outcome (range, 0%-20.4%; unadjusted MOR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.40-1.73]). This variation persisted despite adjustment for patient-level and EMS agency-level factors known to be associated with outcomes (adjusted MOR for survival 1.56 [95% CI 1.44-1.73]; adjusted MOR for return of spontaneous circulation at emergency department arrival, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.41-1.62]; adjusted MOR for functionally favorable survival, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.37-1.78]). After restricting analysis to those who survived more than 60 minutes after hospital arrival and including hospital treatment characteristics, the variation persisted (adjusted MOR for survival, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.36-1.69]; adjusted MOR for functionally favorable survival, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.59]). Conclusions and Relevance: We found substantial variations in patient outcomes after OHCA between a large group of EMS agencies in North America that were not explained by documented patient-level and EMS agency-level variables.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.3037

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Deferred consent may be necessary because the therapeutic window is too narrow to obtain a valid preenrolment consent.

    “Deferred consent (i.e. obtaining consent from a surrogate and/or patient as soon as possible after enrolment) may be necessary because the therapeutic window is too narrow to obtain a valid preenrolment consent. 63,317,322 324”

    From European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions (2021) · cites this paper as [324]

    The Study Design and Setting section (page unavailable) says investigators used a waiver of informed consent for a minimal-risk intervention. It does not discuss deferred consent or say that a narrow therapeutic window prevented valid pre-enrolment consent. Searches for those terms and for post-enrolment surrogate consent found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Okubo, M., Schmicker, R. H., Wallace, D. J., Idris, A. H., Nichol, G., Austin, M. A., Grunau, B., Wittwer, L. K., Richmond, N., Morrison, L. J., Kurz, M. C., Cheskes, S., Kudenchuk, P. J., Zive, D. M., Aufderheide, T. P., Wang, H. E., Herren, H., Vaillancourt, C., Davis, D. P., Vilke, G. M., Scheuermeyer, F. X., Weisfeldt, M. L., Elmer, J., Colella, R., Callaway, C. W., & for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Clark County Emergency Medical Services, Vancouver, Washington
  • MedStar, Inc, Fort Worth, Texas
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Okubo, Masashi
Venue
JAMA Cardiology
Published
2018-10-01
Volume
3
Issue
10
Pages
989
ISSN
2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2893225097
Cited by
75
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association (5U01 HL077863)
  • Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  • University of Washington
  • University of Alabama
  • ZOLL Medical Corporation
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01hl077863-11)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (5U01 HL077863)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5 U01 HL077863, U01-HL077863, HL077866)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (5U01 HL077863)
  • Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health (5U01 HL077863)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, emergency medical services, survival to hospital discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, functional outcome, prehospital care, quality of care variation, median odds ratio
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Emergency Medical Services, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Discharge, Prospective Studies, Registries, Cohort Studies, Logistic Models, Survival Analysis, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review