The impact of response time reliability on CPR incidence and resuscitation success: a benchmark study from the German Resuscitation Registry

INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac arrest is one of the most frequent causes of death in the world. In highly qualified emergency medical service (EMS) systems, including well-trained emergency physicians, spontaneous circulation may be restored in up to 53% of patients at least until admission to hospital. Compared with these highly qualified EMS systems, markedly lower success rates are observed in other systems. These data clearly show that there are considerable differences between EMS systems concerning treatment success following cardiac arrest and resuscitation, although in all systems international guidelines for resuscitation are used. In this study, we investigated the impact of response time reliability (RTR) on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) incidence and resuscitation success by using the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after cardiac arrest (RACA) scores and data from seven German EMS systems participating in the German Resuscitation Registry. METHODS: Anonymised patient data after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest gathered from seven EMS systems in Germany from 2006 to 2009 were analysed with regard to socioeconomic factors (population, area and EMS unit-hours), process quality (RTR, CPR incidence, special CPR measures and prehospital cooling), patient factors (age, gender, cause of cardiac arrest and bystander CPR). End points were defined as ROSC, admission to hospital, 24-hour survival and hospital discharge rate. χ(2 )tests, odds ratios and the Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Our present study comprised 2,330 prehospital CPR patients at seven centres. The incidence of sudden cardiac arrest ranged from 36.0 to 65.1/100,000 inhabitants/year. We identified two EMS systems (RTR < 70%) that reached patients within 8 minutes of the call to the dispatch centre 62.0% and 65.6% of the time, respectively. The other five EMS systems (RTR > 70%) reached patients within 8 minutes of the call to the dispatch centre 70.4% up to 95.5% of the time. EMS systems arriving relatively later at the patients side (RTR < 70%) initiate CPR less frequently and admit fewer patients alive to hospital (calculated per 100,000 inhabitants/year) (CPR incidence (1/100,000 inhabitants/year) RTR > 70% = 57.2 vs RTR < 70% = 36.1, OR = 1.586 (99% CI = 1.383 to 1.819); P < 0.01) (admitted to hospital with ROSC (1/100,000 inhabitants/year) RTR > 70% = 24.4 vs RTR < 70% = 15.6, OR = 1.57 (99% CI = 1.274 to 1.935); P < 0.01). Using ROSC rate and the multivariate RACA score to predict outcomes, we found that the two groups did not differ, but ROSC rates were higher than predicted in both groups (ROSC RTR > 70% = 46.6% vs RTR < 70% = 47.3%, OR = 0.971 (95% CI = 0.787 to 1.196); P = n.s.) (ROSC RACA RTR > 70% = 42.4% vs RTR < 70% = 39.5%, OR = 1.127 (95% CI = 0.911 to 1.395); P = n.s.) CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that, on the level of EMS systems, faster ones more often initiate CPR and increase the number of patients admitted to hospital alive. Furthermore, we show that, with very different approaches, all centres that adhere to and are intensely trained according to the 2005 European Resuscitation Council guidelines are superior and, on the basis of international comparisons, achieve excellent success rates following CPR.