2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111	HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP
advanced	CURRENT ISSUE	ARCHIVES	JASN Express	ONLINE SUBMISSION

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: ASN.2006040392v1 18/1/312    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lehrich, R. W. Articles by Middleton, J. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lehrich, R. W. Articles by Middleton, J. P.

Automated External Defibrillators and Survival from Cardiac Arrest in the Outpatient Hemodialysis Clinic

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Address correspondence to: Dr. John P. Middleton, Department of Clinical Nephrology, Duke University, Box 3014 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710. Phone: 919-660-6860; Fax: 919-684-4476; j.p.middleton{at}duke.edu

Received for publication April 24, 2006. Accepted for publication October 14, 2006.

Automated external defibrillators (AED) have been recommended for use in outpatient dialysis clinics to improve outcomes from cardiac arrest, the most common cause of death in patients with ESRD. The effectiveness of this policy is unknown. The study cohort consisted of 43,200 hemodialysis patients in the US Gambro Healthcare System from 2002 to 2005. Of these, 729 patients who sustained an in-center cardiac arrest were identified. Baseline characteristics at the time of the event were compared between patients who underwent hemodialysis in clinics with and without an AED on site. Unadjusted survival and survival adjusted for potential confounders was measured using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Unadjusted survival at 30 d was 19 versus 15% (P = 0.12) and 9.5 versus 7.8% at 1 yr (P = 0.39) in the AED-present and AED-absent groups, respectively. AED presence was not associated with outcome in unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.07; P = 0.26). Univariable analysis identified age (HR 1.07 per decade; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), serum albumin (HR 0.91 per 0.7-mg/dl increase; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01), and indwelling dialysis catheters (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42) as potential confounders. Medications including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, blockers, calcium channel blockers, other BP medications, aspirin, antibiotics, and antiarrhythmics were associated with survival and considered confounders. After controlling for case mix and confounders, AED presence was not associated with outcome (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; P = 0.83). Presence of AED in the dialysis clinic is not sufficient by itself to improve the abysmal outcome from in-clinic cardiac arrest in hemodialysis patients in the United States.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Ritz and C. Wanner The Challenge of Sudden Death in Dialysis Patients Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2008; 3(3): 920 - 929. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. H. Pun, R. W. Lehrich, S. R. Smith, and J. P. Middleton Predictors of Survival after Cardiac Arrest in Outpatient Hemodialysis Clinics Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2007; 2(3): 491 - 500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. A. Herzog Can We Prevent Sudden Cardiac Death in Dialysis Patients? Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2007; 2(3): 410 - 412. [Full Text] [PDF]

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Nephrology. Online ISSN: 1533-3450 Print ISSN: 1046-6673