Tomonari Shimamoto1, Taku Iwami2, Tetsuhisa Kitamura3, Chika Nishiyama4, Tomohiko Sakai5, Tatsuya Nishiuchi6, Yasuyuki Hayashi7, Takashi Kawamura1. 1. Kyoto University Health Service, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. 2. Kyoto University Health Service, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. Electronic address: iwami.taku.8w@kyoto-u.ac.jp. 3. Division of Environmental Medicine and Population Sciences, Department of Social and Environmental Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 2-2 Ymamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan. 4. Department of Critical Care Nursing, Kyoto University Graduate School of Human Health Science, 53 Shogoin Kawahara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan. 5. Department of Traumatology and Acute Critical Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-15 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan. 6. Department of Acute Medicine, Kinki University Faculty of Medicine, 377-2 Ohno-Higashi Osaka-Sayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan. 7. Senri Critical Care Medical Center, Osaka Saiseikai Senri Hospital, 1-1-6 Tsukumodai, Suita, Osaka 565-0862, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A preceding randomized controlled trial demonstrated that chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction by dispatcher was more effective to increase bystander CPR than conventional CPR instruction. However, the actual condition of implementation of each type of dispatcher instruction (chest compression-only CPR [CCCPR] or conventional CPR with rescue breathing) and provision of bystander CPR in real prehospital settings has not been sufficiently investigated. METHODS: This registry prospectively enrolled patients aged =>18 years suffering an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of non-traumatic causes before emergency-medical-service (EMS) arrival, who were considered as target subjects of dispatcher instruction, resuscitated by EMS personnel, and transported to medical institutions in Osaka, Japan from January 2005 through December 2012. The primary outcome measure was provision of CPR by a bystander. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors that were potentially associated with provision of bystander CPR. RESULTS: Among 37,283 target subjects of dispatcher instruction, 5743 received CCCPR instruction and 13,926 received conventional CPR instruction. The proportion of CCCPR instruction increased from 5.7% in 2005 to 25.6% in 2012 (p for trend <0.001). The CCCPR instruction group received bystander CPR more frequently than conventional CPR instruction group (70.0% versus 62.1%, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, CCCPR dispatcher instruction was significantly associated with provision of bystander CPR compared with conventional CPR instruction (adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: CCCPR dispatcher instruction among adult OHCA patients significantly increased the actual provision of bystander CPR.
BACKGROUND: A preceding randomized controlled trial demonstrated that chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction by dispatcher was more effective to increase bystander CPR than conventional CPR instruction. However, the actual condition of implementation of each type of dispatcher instruction (chest compression-only CPR [CCCPR] or conventional CPR with rescue breathing) and provision of bystander CPR in real prehospital settings has not been sufficiently investigated. METHODS: This registry prospectively enrolled patients aged =>18 years suffering an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of non-traumatic causes before emergency-medical-service (EMS) arrival, who were considered as target subjects of dispatcher instruction, resuscitated by EMS personnel, and transported to medical institutions in Osaka, Japan from January 2005 through December 2012. The primary outcome measure was provision of CPR by a bystander. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors that were potentially associated with provision of bystander CPR. RESULTS: Among 37,283 target subjects of dispatcher instruction, 5743 received CCCPR instruction and 13,926 received conventional CPR instruction. The proportion of CCCPR instruction increased from 5.7% in 2005 to 25.6% in 2012 (p for trend <0.001). The CCCPR instruction group received bystander CPR more frequently than conventional CPR instruction group (70.0% versus 62.1%, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, CCCPR dispatcher instruction was significantly associated with provision of bystander CPR compared with conventional CPR instruction (adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.55). CONCLUSIONS: CCCPR dispatcher instruction among adult OHCA patients significantly increased the actual provision of bystander CPR.
Authors: Lauren Hampton; Peter Brindley; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Jessica McKee; Julian Regehr; Douglas Martin; Anthony LaPorta; Jason Park; Ashley Vergis; Lawrence Gillman Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Hye Ji Park; Won Jung Jeong; Hyung Jun Moon; Gi Woon Kim; Jin Seong Cho; Kyoung Mi Lee; Hyuk Joong Choi; Yong Jin Park; Choung Ah Lee Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 1.112