Retrospective study examines transthoracic impedance's impact on ventricular fibrillation outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, suggesting a potential influence on termination rates.
Abstract Aim To examine the association between transthoracic impedance (TTI) and termination of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pVT) and recurrent VF/pVT in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of non-traumatic OHCA in patients aged ≥16 years with an initial shockable rhythm between January 2019 and October 2022. Termination of VF/pVT was defined as the absence of a shockable rhythm within 5 seconds following shock delivery, resulting in asystole or an organised rhythm. The relationship between TTI and VF/pVT termination and recurrence were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression models applied to shock level data with a random intercept for clustering by patient. Results Between 2019 and 2022, 1,880 cases met the inclusion criteria, comprising 8,333 analysable shocks. The unadjusted probability of VF/pVT termination declined at TTI values ≥ 100Ω, whereas no clear relationship was observed at TTI <100Ω. In adjusted analyses, TTI <100Ω was not associated with VF/pVT termination (adjusted odds ratio [OR] per 1-Ω increase 0.999; 95% CI 0.993–1.006; p=0.860), while TTI ≥100Ω was associated with lower odds of termination (adjusted OR per 1-Ω increase 0.994; 95% CI 0.988–0.999; p=0.016). Among shocks that resulted in VF/pVT termination, TTI was not associated with recurrent VF/pVT (adjusted OR per 1-Ω increase 1.003; 95% CI 0.999–1.006; p=0.082). Conclusion Despite impedance-compensated defibrillation, TTI ≥100Ω remains associated with reduced likelihood of VF/pVT termination in OHCA. In contrast, TTI does not appear to influence the risk of recurrent VF/pVT following successful termination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alhenaki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: