OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with chest compression only and conventional CPR on outcomes after cardiopulmonary arrest out of hospital. DESIGN: Nationwide population based observational study. SETTING: A nationwide emergency medical service system in Japan. Population All consecutive patients with out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, January 2005 to December 2007 in Japan, witnessed at the moment of collapse. Lay people attempted chest compression only CPR (n = 20,707) or conventional CPR (mouth to mouth ventilation and chest compression) (n = 19,328), and patients were transferred to hospital by ambulance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with better outcomes (assessed with χ(2), multiple logistic regression analysis, odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals): one month survival and neurologically favourable one month survival rates defined as category one (good cerebral performance) or two (moderate cerebral disability) of the cerebral performance categories. RESULTS: Conventional CPR was associated with better outcomes than chest compression only CPR, for both one month survival (adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.29) and neurologically favourable one month survival (1.17, 1.01 to 1.35). Neurologically favourable one month survival decreased with increasing age and with delays of up to 10 minutes in starting CPR for both conventional and chest compression only CPR. The benefit of conventional CPR over chest compression only CPR was significantly greater in younger people in non-cardiac cases (P = 0.025) and with a delay in start of CPR after the event was witnessed in non-cardiac cases (P = 0.015) and all cases combined (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional CPR is associated with better outcomes than chest compression only CPR for selected patients with out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, such as those with arrests of non-cardiac origin and younger people, and people in whom there was delay in the start of CPR.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with chest compression only and conventional CPR on outcomes after cardiopulmonary arrest out of hospital. DESIGN: Nationwide population based observational study. SETTING: A nationwide emergency medical service system in Japan. Population All consecutive patients with out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, January 2005 to December 2007 in Japan, witnessed at the moment of collapse. Lay people attempted chest compression only CPR (n = 20,707) or conventional CPR (mouth to mouth ventilation and chest compression) (n = 19,328), and patients were transferred to hospital by ambulance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors associated with better outcomes (assessed with χ(2), multiple logistic regression analysis, odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals): one month survival and neurologically favourable one month survival rates defined as category one (good cerebral performance) or two (moderate cerebral disability) of the cerebral performance categories. RESULTS: Conventional CPR was associated with better outcomes than chest compression only CPR, for both one month survival (adjusted odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.29) and neurologically favourable one month survival (1.17, 1.01 to 1.35). Neurologically favourable one month survival decreased with increasing age and with delays of up to 10 minutes in starting CPR for both conventional and chest compression only CPR. The benefit of conventional CPR over chest compression only CPR was significantly greater in younger people in non-cardiac cases (P = 0.025) and with a delay in start of CPR after the event was witnessed in non-cardiac cases (P = 0.015) and all cases combined (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Conventional CPR is associated with better outcomes than chest compression only CPR for selected patients with out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest, such as those with arrests of non-cardiac origin and younger people, and people in whom there was delay in the start of CPR.
Authors: Audrey L Blewer; Marion Leary; Emily C Esposito; Mariana Gonzalez; Barbara Riegel; Bentley J Bobrow; Benjamin S Abella Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Alexis A Topjian; Robert A Berg; Joost J L M Bierens; Christine M Branche; Robert S Clark; Hans Friberg; Cornelia W E Hoedemaekers; Michael Holzer; Laurence M Katz; Johannes T A Knape; Patrick M Kochanek; Vinay Nadkarni; Johannes G van der Hoeven; David S Warner Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Carsten Lott; Anatolij Truhlář; Anette Alfonzo; Alessandro Barelli; Violeta González-Salvado; Jochen Hinkelbein; Jerry P Nolan; Peter Paal; Gavin D Perkins; Karl-Christian Thies; Joyce Yeung; David A Zideman; Jasmeet Soar Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 0.826