Early Outcomes of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest after Early Defibrillation: a 24 Months Retrospective Analysis

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease remains the most common cause of death in the United States and most other Western nations. Among these deaths, sudden, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest claims approximately 1000 lives each day in the United States alone. Most of these cardiac arrests are due to ventricular fibrillation. Though highly reversible with the rapid application of a defibrillator, ventricular fibrillation is otherwise fatal within minutes, even when cardiopulmonary resuscitation is provided immediately. The overall survival rate in the United States is estimated to be less than 5 percent. Recent developments in automated-external-defibrillator technology have provided a means of increasing the rate of prompt defibrillation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. After minimal training, nonmedical personnel (e.g., flight attendants and casino workers) are also able to use defibrillators in the workplace, with lifesaving effects. Nonetheless, such programs have involved designated personnel whose job description includes assisting persons who have had sudden cardiac arrest. Data are still lacking on the success of programs in which automated external defibrillators have been installed in public places to be used by persons who have no specific training or duty to act. Materials and Methods: All patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 2003 and December 2004 and who received early defibrillation for ventricular fibrillation were included. We conducted a 24 months retrospective population-based analysis of the outcome in our population. Results: Over a 24 month period, 446 people had non–traumatic cardiac arrest, and in all of them it was observed to be ventricular fibrillation. In a very few cases, the defibrillator operators were good Samaritans, acting voluntarily. Eighty-nine patients (about 19%) with ventricular fibrillation were successfully resuscitated, including eighteen who regained consciousness before hospital admission. Conclusion: Automated external defibrillators deployed in readily accessible, well-marked areas, are really very effective in assisting patients with cardiac arrest. However, it's quite true that, in the cases of survivors, most of our users had good prior training in the use of these devices

Atrial Fibrillation and Pacing Algorithms

Pacing prevention algorithms have been introduced in order to maximize the benefits of atrial pacing in atrial fibrillation prevention. It has been demonstrated that algorithms actually keep overdrive atrial pacing, reduce atrial premature contractions, and prevent short-long atrial cycle phenomenon, with good patient tolerance. However, clinical studies showed inconsistent benefits on clinical endpoints such as atrial fibrillation burden. Factors which may be responsible for neutral results include an already high atrial pacing percentage in conventional DDDR, non-optimal atrial pacing site and deleterious effects of high percentages of apical ventricular pacing. Atrial antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies are effective in treating spontaneous atrial tachyarrhythmias, mainly when delivered early after arrhythmia onset and/or on slower tachycardias. Effective ATP therapies may reduce atrial fibrillation burden, but conflicting evidence does exist as regards this issue, probably because current clinical studies may be underpowered to detect such an efficacy. Wide application of atrial ATP may reduce the need for hospitalizations and electrical cardioversions and favorably impact on quality of life. Consistent monitoring of atrial and ventricular rhythm as well as that of ATP effectiveness may be extremely useful for optimizing device programming and pharmacological therapy