DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.18326 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 18326: The Association of s Shockable Rhythm and Automated External Defibrillator Use With Outcomes in Infants With Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Study From the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival

Maryam Y Naim, Heather M Griffis, Bryan F McNally, Rabab Al-Araji, Robert Berg, sarita chung, Vinay M Nadkarni, Joshua M Tobin, Victoria L Vetter, Joseph Rossano
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Introduction: Defibrillation with an automated external defibrillator (AED) is critical in the chain of survival following a cardiac arrest caused by pulseless ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. However, in 2022 the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation could not make a recommendation for or against the use of AEDs in infants.

Hypothesis: We aimed to describe the association of a shockable rhythm with outcomes in infants with out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and test the hypothesis that a shockable rhythm and AED use with defibrillation would be associated with improved neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge by analyzing data from a large cardiac arrest registry in the United States

Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database. Inclusion criteria were age < 1 year of age and non-traumatic OHCA from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was neurologically favorable survival defined as a Cerebral Performance Category Scale of 1 or 2.

Results: A total of 10,108 infants with OHCA were evaluated of which 308 (3%) had a shockable rhythm and 9,800 (97%) had a non-shockable rhythm. Compared to infants with non-shockable rhythms infants with shockable rhythms were more likely to be white (37.7% white, 25.6% black, 7.5% Hispanic), have a witnessed arrest (44.5% vs. 16%), a non-home/public arrest (16.9% vs. 6.7%), and bystander AED application with defibrillation (19.4% vs. 0.18%) (p<0.05 for all). Neurologically favorable survival (19.2% shockable vs. 4.2% non-shockable was higher in arrests with a shockable rhythm compared to non-shockable arrests, p<0.001). AEDs were applied by bystanders in 1479 (14.5%) arrests and were associated with neurologically favorable survival (11% AED with defibrillation vs. 3.5% AED without defibrillation, p=0.002)

Conclusions: Although infants infrequently had an OHCA with a shockable rhythm survival outcomes were superior in arrests with a shockable rhythm and in arrests where there was bystander AED use with defibrillation. These results emphasize the importance of AED use in infants with shockable rhythms following an OHCA.

More from our Archive