T M Olasveengen1, L Wik, P A Steen. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, and Institute for Experimental Medical Research, Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. t.m.olasveengen@medisin.uio.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of ventilations after cardiac arrest has been much debated recently and eliminating mouth-to-mouth ventilations for bystanders has been suggested as a means to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Standard basic life support (S-BLS) is not documented to be superior to continuous chest compressions (CCC). METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of all non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients older than 18 years between May 2003 and December 2006 treated by the community-run emergency medical service (EMS) in Oslo. Outcome for patients receiving S-BLS was compared with patients receiving CCC. All Utstein characteristics were registered for both patient groups as well as for patients not receiving any bystander CPR by reviewing Ambulance run sheets, Utstein forms and hospital records. Method of bystander CPR as well as dispatcher instruction was registered by first-arriving ambulance personnel. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five out of 809 cardiac arrests in our EMS were included in this study. Two-hundred eighty-one (40%) received S-CPR and 145 (21%) received CCC. There were no differences in outcome between the two patient groups, with 35 (13%) discharged with a favourable outcome for the S-BLS group and 15 (10%) in the CCC group (P=0.859). Similarly, there was no difference in survival subgroup analysis of patients presenting with initial ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia after witnessed arrest, with 32 (29%) and 10 (28%) patients discharged from hospital in the S-BLS and CCC groups, respectively (P=0.972). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving CCC from bystanders did not have a worse outcome than patients receiving standard CPR, even with a tendency towards a higher distribution of known negative predictive features.
BACKGROUND: The importance of ventilations after cardiac arrest has been much debated recently and eliminating mouth-to-mouth ventilations for bystanders has been suggested as a means to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Standard basic life support (S-BLS) is not documented to be superior to continuous chest compressions (CCC). METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of all non-traumatic cardiac arrestpatients older than 18 years between May 2003 and December 2006 treated by the community-run emergency medical service (EMS) in Oslo. Outcome for patients receiving S-BLS was compared with patients receiving CCC. All Utstein characteristics were registered for both patient groups as well as for patients not receiving any bystander CPR by reviewing Ambulance run sheets, Utstein forms and hospital records. Method of bystander CPR as well as dispatcher instruction was registered by first-arriving ambulance personnel. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety-five out of 809 cardiac arrests in our EMS were included in this study. Two-hundred eighty-one (40%) received S-CPR and 145 (21%) received CCC. There were no differences in outcome between the two patient groups, with 35 (13%) discharged with a favourable outcome for the S-BLS group and 15 (10%) in the CCC group (P=0.859). Similarly, there was no difference in survival subgroup analysis of patients presenting with initial ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia after witnessed arrest, with 32 (29%) and 10 (28%) patients discharged from hospital in the S-BLS and CCC groups, respectively (P=0.972). CONCLUSIONS:Patients receiving CCC from bystanders did not have a worse outcome than patients receiving standard CPR, even with a tendency towards a higher distribution of known negative predictive features.
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; John E Billi; Bernd W Boettiger; Leo Bossaert; Allan R de Caen; Charles D Deakin; Saul Drajer; Brian Eigel; Robert W Hickey; Ian Jacobs; Monica E Kleinman; Walter Kloeck; Rudolph W Koster; Swee Han Lim; Mary E Mancini; William H Montgomery; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert E O'Connor; Kazuo Okada; Jeffrey M Perlman; Michael R Sayre; Michael Shuster; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Andrew H Travers; Jonathan Wyllie; David Zideman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jonghwan Shin; Seong Youn Hwang; Hui Jai Lee; Chang Je Park; Yong Joon Kim; Yeong Ju Son; Ji Seon Seo; Jin Joo Kim; Jung Eun Lee; In Mo Lee; Bong Yeun Koh; Sung Gi Hong Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Paula Ferrada; Rachael A Callcut; David J Skarupa; Therese M Duane; Alberto Garcia; Kenji Inaba; Desmond Khor; Vincent Anto; Jason Sperry; David Turay; Rachel M Nygaard; Martin A Schreiber; Toby Enniss; Michelle McNutt; Herb Phelan; Kira Smith; Forrest O Moore; Irene Tabas; Joseph Dubose Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 5.469