Literature DB >> 20924010

Chest compression-only CPR by lay rescuers and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Bentley J Bobrow1, Daniel W Spaite, Robert A Berg, Uwe Stolz, Arthur B Sanders, Karl B Kern, Tyler F Vadeboncoeur, Lani L Clark, John V Gallagher, J Stephan Stapczynski, Frank LoVecchio, Terry J Mullins, Will O Humble, Gordon A Ewy.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Chest compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may be as effective as conventional CPR with rescue breathing for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using compression-only CPR (COCPR) compared with conventional CPR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A 5-year prospective observational cohort study of survival in patients at least 18 years old with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009, in Arizona. The relationship between layperson bystander CPR and survival to hospital discharge was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Survival to hospital discharge.
RESULTS: Among 5272 adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac etiology not observed by responding emergency medical personnel, 779 were excluded because bystander CPR was provided by a health care professional or the arrest occurred in a medical facility. A total of 4415 met all inclusion criteria for analysis, including 2900 who received no bystander CPR, 666 who received conventional CPR, and 849 who received COCPR. Rates of survival to hospital discharge were 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4%-6.0%) for the no bystander CPR group, 7.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-9.8%) for conventional CPR, and 13.3% (95% CI, 11.0%-15.6%) for COCPR. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for survival for conventional CPR vs no CPR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.69-1.43), for COCPR vs no CPR, 1.59 (95% CI, 1.18-2.13), and for COCPR vs conventional CPR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.08-2.35). From 2005 to 2009, lay rescuer CPR increased from 28.2% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.8%) to 39.9% (95% CI, 36.8%-42.9%; P < .001); the proportion of CPR that was COCPR increased from 19.6% (95% CI, 13.6%-25.7%) to 75.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.1%; P < .001). Overall survival increased from 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2%-5.2%) to 9.8% (95% CI, 8.0%-11.6%; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, layperson compression-only CPR was associated with increased survival compared with conventional CPR and no bystander CPR in this setting with public endorsement of chest compression-only CPR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20924010     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1392

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  76 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

Review 2.  [The supraglottic airway in the prehospital setting].

Authors:  H-R Arntz; J Breckwoldt
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 0.840

3.  A randomized trial of continuous versus interrupted chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: rationale for and design of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Continuous Chest Compressions Trial.

Authors:  Siobhan P Brown; Henry Wang; Tom P Aufderheide; Christian Vaillancourt; Robert H Schmicker; Sheldon Cheskes; Ron Straight; Peter Kudenchuk; Laurie Morrison; M Riccardo Colella; Joseph Condle; George Gamez; David Hostler; Tami Kayea; Sally Ragsdale; Shannon Stephens; Graham Nichol
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 4.749

4.  The HANDDS program: a systematic approach for addressing disparities in the provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  Comilla Sasson; Jason S Haukoos; Brian Eigel; David J Magid
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.451

5.  Measuring the effectiveness of a novel CPRcard™ feedback device during simulated chest compressions by non-healthcare workers.

Authors:  Alexander E White; Han Xian Ng; Wai Yee Ng; Eileen Kai Xin Ng; Stephanie Fook-Chong; Phek Hui Jade Kua; Marcus Eng Hock Ong
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.858

6.  Improvement of lay rescuer chest compressions with a novel audiovisual feedback device : A randomized trial.

Authors:  A Wutzler; S von Ulmenstein; M Bannehr; K Völk; J Förster; C Storm; W Haverkamp
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 0.840

7.  Continuous Chest Compressions During Sustained Inflations in a Perinatal Asphyxial Cardiac Arrest Lamb Model.

Authors:  Payam Vali; Praveen Chandrasekharan; Munmun Rawat; Sylvia Gugino; Carmon Koenigsknecht; Justin Helman; Bobby Mathew; Sara Berkelhamer; Jayasree Nair; Satyan Lakshminrusimha
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.624

8.  Decoding twitter: Surveillance and trends for cardiac arrest and resuscitation communication.

Authors:  Justin C Bosley; Nina W Zhao; Shawndra Hill; Frances S Shofer; David A Asch; Lance B Becker; Raina M Merchant
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2012-10-27       Impact factor: 5.262

9.  Effect of rescue breathing by lay rescuers for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest caused by respiratory disease: a nationwide, population-based, propensity score-matched study.

Authors:  Tatsuma Fukuda; Naoko Ohashi-Fukuda; Yutaka Kondo; Toshiki Sera; Naoki Yahagi
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2016-05-30       Impact factor: 3.397

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.