| Literature DB >> 32532201 |
Michał Czapla1, Marzena Zielińska2, Anna Kubica-Cielińska3, Dorota Diakowska4, Tom Quinn5, Piotr Karniej1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a common reason for calls for intervention by emergency medical teams (EMTs) in Poland. Regardless of the mechanism, OHCA is a state in which the chance of survival is dependent on rapid action from bystanders and responding health professionals in emergency medical services (EMS). We aimed to identify factors associated with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).Entities:
Keywords: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Emergency medical services; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; Prehospital emergency care
Year: 2020 PMID: 32532201 PMCID: PMC7291476 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-020-01571-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Fig. 1The main data of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Abbreviations: CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; VF: ventricular fibrillation; VT: ventricular tachycardia; PEA: pulseless electrical activity; ROSC: return of spontaneous circulation
Comparison of selected variables characterizing the study group depending on ROCS
| ROSC | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | % | No | % | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| x̅ | 65.5 | 67.7 | =0.14 | ||
| Min | 4.0 | 1.0 | |||
| Max | 99.0 | 104.0 | |||
| SD | 17.9 | 17.7 | |||
| Gender | |||||
| Women | 65 | 34 | 246 | 31 | =0.41 |
| Men | 127 | 66 | 554 | 69 | |
| Transfer to hospital during CPR | |||||
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | =0.44 |
| No | 192 | 100 | 792 | 99 | |
| CPR initiated by witness | |||||
| No | 40 | 21 | 71 | 9 | < 0.001 |
| Yes | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | |
| Not reported | 149 | 78 | 724 | 91 | |
| ECG | |||||
| VF/VT | 60 | 31 | 116 | 15 | < 0.001 |
| ASYS/PEA | 132 | 69 | 684 | 86 | |
| Public place | |||||
| Yes | 70 | 37 | 195 | 24 | 0.001 |
| No | 122 | 63 | 605 | 76 | |
| Type of EMT | |||||
| B-EMT | 79 | 41 | 375 | 47 | =0.15 |
| S-EMT | 113 | 59 | 425 | 53 | |
| Arrival time of EMT (minutes) | |||||
| ≤8 | 78 | 41 | 312 | 39 | =0.68 |
| > 8 | 114 | 59 | 488 | 61 | |
| Arrival time of EMT (minutes) | |||||
| x̅ | 16.9 | 15.7 | =0.35 | ||
| Min | 1 | 0 | |||
| Max | 85 | 104 | |||
| SD | 15.8 | 15.8 | |||
*test χ2
Abbreviations: x̅ mean, Min minimum value, Max maximum value, SD standard deviation, n number of participants, % percent, ROSC return of spontaneous circulation, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECG electrocardiography, EMT emergency medical team, B-EMT basic emergency medical team, S-EMT: EMT specialist emergency medical team, VF ventricular fibrillation, VT ventricular tachycardia, ASYS asystolia, PEA pulseless electrical activity
Evaluation of the impact of selected variables on the ROSC (single-factor model)
| ROSC (probability modeling: yes) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | B | SE | OR | 95% CI (lower) | 95% CI (upper) | |
| Age | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.15 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 1.00 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Women | Ref. | |||||
| Men | −0.14 | 0.17 | 0.41 | 0.87 | 0.62 | 1.21 |
| CPR initiated by witness | ||||||
| No | Ref. | |||||
| Yes | −0.06 | 0.76 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.21 | 4.14 |
| Not reported | −1.07 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.08 | 1.45 |
| ECG | ||||||
| ASYS/PEA | Ref. | |||||
| VF/VT | 0.99 | 0.19 | < 0.001 | 2.68 | 1.86 | 3.85 |
| Public place | ||||||
| No | Ref. | |||||
| Yes | 0.58 | 0.17 | < 0.001 | 1.78 | 1.27 | 2.49 |
| Type of EMT | ||||||
| B-EMT | Ref. | |||||
| S-EMT | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 1.26 | 0.92 | 1.74 |
| Arrival time of EMT (minutes) | ||||||
| ≤8 | Ref. | |||||
| > 8 | −0.07 | 0.16 | 0.68 | 0.93 | 0.68 | 1.13 |
| Arrival time of EMT (minutes) | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.35 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.01 |
Abbreviations: OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval, SE Standard Error, B Regression Coefficient, ROSC return of spontaneous circulation, ECG electrocardiography, EMT emergency medical team, B-EMT basic emergency medical team, S-EMT: EMT specialist emergency medical team, VF ventricular fibrillation, VT ventricular tachycardia, ASYS asystolia, PEA pulseless electrical activity
Evaluation of the influence of selected variables on the ROSC (multi-factor model)
| ROSC (probability modeling: yes) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | B | SE | OR | 95% CI (lower) | 95% CI (upper) | |
| ECG | ||||||
| ASYS/PEA | Ref. | |||||
| VF/VT | 0.92 | 0.19 | < 0.001 | 2.52 | 1.74 | 3.63 |
| Public place | ||||||
| No | Ref. | |||||
| Yes | 0.43 | 0.21 | 0.045 | 1.53 | 1.01 | 2.32 |
Hosmer-Lemeshow’s test: p = 0.24
Multivariate analysis includes the following variables: Age, Gender, CPR initiated by witness, ECG, Public place, Type of EMT
Abbreviations: OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval, SE Standard Error, B Regression Coefficient, ECG electrocardiography, VF ventricular fibrillation, VT ventricular tachycardia, ASYST asystolia, PEA pulseless electrical activity
Comparison of initiations of CPR by witnesses according to their gender and place of event
| CPR initiated by witness | CPR initiated by witness | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public place | Public place | |||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||
| Gender | ||||||
| Women | 7 | 18 | =0.032 | 0 | 3 | =0.90 |
| % | 28% | 72% | 0% | 100% | ||
| Men | 45 | 41 | 3 | 2 | ||
| % | 52% | 48% | 60% | 40% | ||
*χ2 test
Abbreviations: n: number of participants; %: percent