Literature DB >> 12879376

A comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation rates of strangers versus known bystanders.

Karen Casper1, George Murphy, Carl Weinstein, Kathryn Brinsfield.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves survival. The authors attempted to determine whether the rates at which CPR is performed differ when a cardiac arrest is witnessed by someone known or unknown to the victim.
METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study of all witnessed nontraumatic cardiac arrests (Utstein) from Boston from 1994 to 1998. Cardiac arrests were excluded if the original record was unavailable or if medical or public safety personnel witnessed the cardiac arrest. The relationship between the provider of CPR and the victim was determined by the emergency medical technicians at the scene and later categorized as known or unknown. Survival (survival to hospital discharge) was determined through telephone follow-up with the arrest victim's caregivers.
RESULTS: Known bystanders performed CPR 15.5% (42 of 271) of the time (95% confidence interval (95% CI], 11.2%, 19.8%). Unknown bystanders performed CPR 45.8% (66 of 144) (95% CI, 37.6%, 54.1%) of the time. The odds ratio of receiving CPR if an unknown bystander witnessed a cardiac arrest was 4.61 (95% CI, 2.89, 7.34). Arrests witnessed by unknown bystanders had a 24.3% (35 of 144) (95% CI, 17.2%, 31.4%) survival rate. Those witnessed by known bystanders had a 17.7% (95% CI, 13.1%, 22.3%) survival rate (p = 0.110). In a logistic regression model including both bystander status and location of arrest, unknown bystander status remained statistically significantly associated with having CPR performed regardless of location (OR = 3.56, p = 0.01; 95% CI, 1.64, 7.72). Location was not statistically significant in the presence of bystander status (OR = 1.17, p = 0.686).
CONCLUSION: Victims of cardiac arrest are more likely to receive CPR when the event is witnessed by bystanders unknown to the victim than if the arrest is witnessed by friends or family.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12879376     DOI: 10.1080/10903120390936455

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  5 in total

Review 1.  ["Topless" cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Fashion or science?].

Authors:  K Markstaller; B Eberle; W F Dick
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Senior citizens as rescuers: Is reduced knowledge the reason for omitted lay-resuscitation-attempts? Results from a representative survey with 2004 interviews.

Authors:  Peter Brinkrolf; Andreas Bohn; Roman-Patrik Lukas; Marko Heyse; Thomas Dierschke; Hugo Karel Van Aken; Klaus Hahnenkamp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Dispatcher-Assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Disparity between Urban and Rural Areas.

Authors:  Yen-Chin Chen; Shao-Hua Yu; Wei-Jen Chen; Li-Chi Huang; Chih-Yu Chen; Hong-Mo Shih
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 1.112

4.  Disparities in Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Performed by a Family Member and a Non-family Member.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Sato; Tasuku Matsuyama; Tetsuhisa Kitamura; Yasuo Hirose
Journal:  J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 3.211

Review 5.  Readiness of Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (BCPR) during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review.

Authors:  Muhammad Fattah Fazel; Mohamad Haiqal Nizar Mohamad; Mohd Azmani Sahar; Norsham Juliana; Izuddin Fahmy Abu; Srijit Das
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 4.614

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.