BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term survival effects of type-specific bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the community. We hypothesized that dispatcher instruction consisting of chest compression alone would be associated with better overall long-term prognosis in comparison with chest compression plus rescue breathing. METHODS AND RESULTS: The investigation was a retrospective cohort study that combined 2 randomized trials comparing the short-term survival effects of dispatcher CPR instruction consisting either of chest compression alone or chest compression plus rescue breathing. Long-term vital status was ascertained by using the respective National and State death records through July 31, 2011. We performed Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression to evaluate survival according to the type of CPR instruction. Of the 2496 subjects included in the current investigation, 1243 (50%) were randomly assigned to chest compression alone and 1253 (50%) were randomly assigned to chest compression plus rescue breathing. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 CPR groups. During the 1153.2 person-years of follow-up, there were 2260 deaths and 236 long-term survivors. Randomization to chest compression alone in comparison with chest compression plus rescue breathing was associated with a lower risk of death after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.99; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide strong support for long-term mortality benefit of dispatcher CPR instruction strategy consisting of chest compression alone rather than chest compression plus rescue breathing among adult patients with cardiac arrest requiring dispatcher assistance.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term survival effects of type-specific bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the community. We hypothesized that dispatcher instruction consisting of chest compression alone would be associated with better overall long-term prognosis in comparison with chest compression plus rescue breathing. METHODS AND RESULTS: The investigation was a retrospective cohort study that combined 2 randomized trials comparing the short-term survival effects of dispatcher CPR instruction consisting either of chest compression alone or chest compression plus rescue breathing. Long-term vital status was ascertained by using the respective National and State death records through July 31, 2011. We performed Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression to evaluate survival according to the type of CPR instruction. Of the 2496 subjects included in the current investigation, 1243 (50%) were randomly assigned to chest compression alone and 1253 (50%) were randomly assigned to chest compression plus rescue breathing. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 CPR groups. During the 1153.2 person-years of follow-up, there were 2260 deaths and 236 long-term survivors. Randomization to chest compression alone in comparison with chest compression plus rescue breathing was associated with a lower risk of death after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.99; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide strong support for long-term mortality benefit of dispatcher CPR instruction strategy consisting of chest compression alone rather than chest compression plus rescue breathing among adult patients with cardiac arrest requiring dispatcher assistance.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mary P Chang; Yuanzheng Lu; Brian Leroux; Elisabete Aramendi Ecenarro; Pamela Owens; Henry E Wang; Ahamed H Idris Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2019-05-18 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: J C Nest; D Steinbrunner; M Karger; M Hiltl; F von Kaufmann; K-G Kanz; U Kreimeier Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2014-11-29 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Sofia Ruiz de Gauna; Unai Irusta; Jesus Ruiz; Unai Ayala; Elisabete Aramendi; Trygve Eftestøl Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.411