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

• Published in: Circulation (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2023-11, Vol.148 (Suppl_1)
• Main Authors: Naim, Maryam Y, Griffis, Heather M, McNally, Bryan F, Al-Araji, Rabab, Berg, Robert, chung, sarita, Nadkarni, Vinay M, Tobin, Joshua M, Vetter, Victoria L, Rossano, Joseph
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0009-7322; 1524-4539
• DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.18326

Abstract only 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