Cited by 158Cardiac Arrest and ResuscitationPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesMechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Good outcome in every fourth resuscitation attempt is achievable—An Utstein template report from the Stavanger region

Lindner, Thomas Werner, Søreide, Eldar, Nilsen, Odd Bjarte, Torunn, Mathiesen Wenche, Lossius, Hans Morten·2011·Resuscitation

Abstract

Aim of the study Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death in the western world. We wanted to study changes in survival over time and factors linked to this in a region which have already reported high survival rates.Methods We used a prospectively collected Utstein template database to identify all resuscitation attempts in adult patients with OHCA of presumed cardiac origin. We included 846 resuscitation attempts and compared survival to discharge with good outcome in two time periods (2001-2005 vs. 2006-2008).Results We found no significant differences between the two time periods for mean age (71 and 70 years (p=0.309)), sex distribution (males 70% and 71% (p=0.708)), location of the OHCA (home 64% and 63% (p=0.732)), proportion of shockable rhythms (44% and 47% (p=0.261)) and rate of return of spontaneous circulation (38% and 43% (p=0.136)), respectively. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), however, increased significantly from 60% to 73% (p<0.0001), as did the overall rate of survival to discharge from 18% to 25% (p=0.018). In patients with a shockable first rhythm, rate of survival to discharge increased significantly from 37% to 48% (p=0.036). In witnessed arrest with shockable rhythm survival to discharge increased from 37% to 52% (p=0.0105).Conclusion Overall, good outcome is now achievable in every fourth resuscitation attempt and in every second resuscitation attempt when patients have a shockable rhythm. The reason for the better outcomes is most likely multi-factorial and linked to improvements in the local chain of survival.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.06.016

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindner, T. W., Søreide, E., Nilsen, O. B., Torunn, M. W., & Lossius, H. M.
Affiliations
  • Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
  • Stiftelsen Norsk Luftambulanse (NO)
Corresponding author
Lindner, Thomas Werner
Venue
Resuscitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
82
Issue
12
Pages
1508-1513
ISSN
0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138401003
Cited by
158
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
17.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Keywords
out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, survival to hospital discharge, bystander CPR, shockable rhythm, return of spontaneous circulation, Utstein template, chain of survival
MeSH terms
Aged, Emergency Medical Services, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Heart Arrest, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Norway, Patient Discharge, Prospective Studies, Survival Rate, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Treatment Outcome, Research Report

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