Audrey L Blewer1,2, Shaun K McGovern1, Robert H Schmicker3, Susanne May3, Laurie J Morrison4, Tom P Aufderheide5, Mohamud Daya5, Ahamed H Idris6, Clifton W Callaway7, Peter J Kudenchuk8, Gary M Vilke9, Benjamin S Abella1. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine and Center for Resuscitation Science (A.L.B., S.K.M., B.S.A.). 2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (A.L.B.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 3. Clinical Trial Center (R.H.S., S.M.). 4. Rescu, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto (L.J.M.). 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (T.P.A.). 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (A.H.I.). 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, PA (C.W.C.). 8. Department of Medicine (P.J.K.), University of Washington, Seattle. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla (G.M.V.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) improves survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet BCPR rates remain low. It is unknown whether BCPR delivery disparities exist based on victim gender. We measured BCPR rates by gender in private and public environments, hypothesizing that females would be less likely than males to receive BCPR in public settings, with an associated difference in survival to hospital discharge. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from adult, nontraumatic OHCA events within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium registry (2011-2015). Using logistic regression, we modeled the likelihood of receiving BCPR by gender, including patient-level variables, stratified by location. A cohort of 19 331 OHCAs was assessed. Mean age was 64±17 years, and 63% (12 225/19 331) were male. Overall, 37% of OHCA victims received bystander CPR. In public locations, 39% (272/694) of females and 45% (1170/2600) of males received BCPR ( P<0.01), whereas in private settings, 35% (2198/6328) of females and 36% (3364/9449) of males received BCPR ( P=NS). Among public OHCAs, males had significantly increased odds of receiving BCPR compared with females (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.53; P=0.01); this was not the case in the private setting (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; P=NS). Controlling for site, age, and race, BCPR was significantly associated with survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.54-1.85; P<0.01); in this model, males had 29% increased odds of survival compared with females (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.42; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Males had an increased likelihood of receiving BCPR compared with females in public. BCPR improved survival to discharge, with greater survival among males compared with females.
BACKGROUND: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) improves survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet BCPR rates remain low. It is unknown whether BCPR delivery disparities exist based on victim gender. We measured BCPR rates by gender in private and public environments, hypothesizing that females would be less likely than males to receive BCPR in public settings, with an associated difference in survival to hospital discharge. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from adult, nontraumatic OHCA events within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium registry (2011-2015). Using logistic regression, we modeled the likelihood of receiving BCPR by gender, including patient-level variables, stratified by location. A cohort of 19 331 OHCAs was assessed. Mean age was 64±17 years, and 63% (12 225/19 331) were male. Overall, 37% of OHCA victims received bystander CPR. In public locations, 39% (272/694) of females and 45% (1170/2600) of males received BCPR ( P<0.01), whereas in private settings, 35% (2198/6328) of females and 36% (3364/9449) of males received BCPR ( P=NS). Among public OHCAs, males had significantly increased odds of receiving BCPR compared with females (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05-1.53; P=0.01); this was not the case in the private setting (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; P=NS). Controlling for site, age, and race, BCPR was significantly associated with survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.54-1.85; P<0.01); in this model, males had 29% increased odds of survival compared with females (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.42; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Males had an increased likelihood of receiving BCPR compared with females in public. BCPR improved survival to discharge, with greater survival among males compared with females.
Authors: Ariann F Nassel; Elisabeth D Root; Jason S Haukoos; Kevin McVaney; Christopher Colwell; James Robinson; Brian Eigel; David J Magid; Comilla Sasson Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Roxanne Pelletier; Karin H Humphries; Avi Shimony; Simon L Bacon; Kim L Lavoie; Doreen Rabi; Igor Karp; Meytal Avgil Tsadok; Louise Pilote Journal: CMAJ Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Comilla Sasson; Carla C Keirns; Dylan M Smith; Michael R Sayre; Michelle L Macy; William J Meurer; Bryan F McNally; Arthur L Kellermann; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Ingela Hasselqvist-Ax; Gabriel Riva; Johan Herlitz; Mårten Rosenqvist; Jacob Hollenberg; Per Nordberg; Mattias Ringh; Martin Jonsson; Christer Axelsson; Jonny Lindqvist; Thomas Karlsson; Leif Svensson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeremy Sugarman; Colleen Sitlani; Dug Andrusiek; Tom Aufderheide; Eileen M Bulger; Daniel P Davis; David B Hoyt; Ahamed Idris; Jeffrey D Kerby; Judy Powell; Terri Schmidt; Arthur S Slutsky; George Sopko; Shannon Stephens; Carolyn Williams; Graham Nichol Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: S Galea; S Blaney; A Nandi; R Silverman; D Vlahov; G Foltin; M Kusick; M Tunik; N Richmond Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-06-21 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sarah M Perman; Shelby K Shelton; Christopher Knoepke; Kathryn Rappaport; Daniel D Matlock; Kathleen Adelgais; Edward P Havranek; Stacie L Daugherty Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sarah M Perman; Bonnie J Siry; Adit A Ginde; Anne V Grossestreuer; Benjamin S Abella; Stacie L Daugherty; Edward P Havranek Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Purav Mody; Ambarish Pandey; Arthur S Slutsky; Matthew W Segar; Alex Kiss; Paul Dorian; Janet Parsons; Damon C Scales; Valeria E Rac; Sheldon Cheskes; Arlene S Bierman; Beth L Abramson; Sara Gray; Rob A Fowler; Katie N Dainty; Ahamed H Idris; Laurie Morrison Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard Rezar; Bernhard Wernly; Michael Haslinger; Clemens Seelmaier; Philipp Schwaiger; Ingrid Pretsch; Maria Eisl; Christian Jung; Uta C Hoppe; Michael Lichtenauer Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Audrey L Blewer; Robert H Schmicker; Laurie J Morrison; Tom P Aufderheide; Mohamud Daya; Monique A Starks; Susanne May; Ahamed H Idris; Clifton W Callaway; Peter J Kudenchuk; Gary M Vilke; Benjamin S Abella Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826