Literature DB >> 20202679

Conventional and chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for children who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: a prospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study.

Tetsuhisa Kitamura1, Taku Iwami, Takashi Kawamura, Ken Nagao, Hideharu Tanaka, Vinay M Nadkarni, Robert A Berg, Atsushi Hiraide.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association recommends cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by bystanders with chest compression only for adults who have cardiac arrests, but not for children. We assessed the effect of CPR (conventional with rescue breathing or chest compression only) by bystanders on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in children.
METHODS: In a nationwide, prospective, population-based, observational study, we enrolled 5170 children aged 17 years and younger who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from Jan 1, 2005, to Dec 31, 2007. Data collected included age, cause, and presence and type of CPR by bystander. The primary endpoint was favourable neurological outcome 1 month after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, defined as Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category 1 or 2.
FINDINGS: 3675 (71%) children had arrests of non-cardiac causes and 1495 (29%) cardiac causes. 1551 (30%) received conventional CPR and 888 (17%) compression-only CPR. Data for type of CPR by bystander were not available for 12 children. Children who were given CPR by a bystander had a significantly higher rate of favourable neurological outcome than did those not given CPR (4.5% [110/2439] vs 1.9% [53/2719]; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.59, 95% CI 1.81-3.71). In children aged 1-17 years who had arrests of non-cardiac causes, favourable neurological outcome was more common after bystander CPR than no CPR (5.1% [51/1004] vs 1.5% [20/1293]; OR 4.17, 2.37-7.32). However, conventional CPR produced more favourable neurological outcome than did compression-only CPR (7.2% [45/624] vs 1.6% [six of 380]; OR 5.54, 2.52-16.99). In children aged 1-17 years who had arrests of cardiac causes, favourable neurological outcome was more common after bystander CPR than no CPR (9.5% [42/440] vs 4.1% [14/339]; OR 2.21, 1.08-4.54), and did not differ between conventional and compression-only CPR (9.9% [28/282] vs 8.9% [14/158]; OR 1.20, 0.55-2.66). In infants (aged <1 year), outcomes were uniformly poor (1.7% [36/2082] with favourable neurological outcome).
INTERPRETATION: For children who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from non-cardiac causes, conventional CPR (with rescue breathing) by bystander is the preferable approach to resuscitation. For arrests of cardiac causes, either conventional or compression-only CPR is similarly effective. FUNDING: Fire and Disaster Management Agency and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan). Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20202679     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60064-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  70 in total

Review 1.  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and management of cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Jerry P Nolan; Jasmeet Soar; Volker Wenzel; Peter Paal
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  Part 10: Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

Authors:  Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Pediatric basic and advanced life support: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

Authors:  Monica E Kleinman; Allan R de Caen; Leon Chameides; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Marc D Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Dominique Biarent; Robert Bingham; Ashraf H Coovadia; Mary Fran Hazinski; Robert W Hickey; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amelia G Reis; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; James Tibballs; Arno L Zaritsky; David Zideman
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2010-10-18       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  Chest-compression-only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Hüpfl; Harald F Selig; Peter Nagele
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Risk of syncope in family members who are genotype-negative for a family-associated long-QT syndrome mutation.

Authors:  Alon Barsheshet; Arthur J Moss; Scott McNitt; Slava Polonsky; Coeli M Lopes; Wojciech Zareba; Jennifer L Robinson; Michael J Ackerman; Jesaia Benhorin; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Jeffrey A Towbin; G Michael Vincent; Ming Qi; Ilan Goldenberg
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2011-08-10

6.  Singapore Paediatric Resuscitation Guidelines 2016.

Authors:  Gene Yong Kwang Ong; Irene Lai Yeen Chan; Agnes Suah Bwee Ng; Su Yah Chew; Yee Hui Mok; Yoke Hwee Chan; Jacqueline Soo May Ong; Sashikumar Ganapathy; Kee Chong Ng
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.858

7.  Pediatric basic and advanced life support: an update on practice and education.

Authors:  Mohamed Al-Shamsi; Waleed Al-Qurashi; Allan de Caen; Farhan Bhanji
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2012-11

Review 8.  Sudden Cardiac Death in the Young.

Authors:  Michael Ackerman; Dianne L Atkins; John K Triedman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation 2010 - Improve the quality of care.

Authors:  S S Harsoor
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2010-03

10.  Continuous chest compressions: encouraging but unusual.

Authors:  Daniel Bergum; Eirik Skogvoll
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.