Table 5.
Studies of subsequent shock in patients with initially nonshockable rhythms
| 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