Affiliation:
1. From the Division of Cardiology, National Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Japan (T.I., H. Yokoyama, H.N.); Kyoto University Health Service, Kyoto, Japan (T.K.); Center for Medical Education, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan (A.H.); Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson (R.A.B.); Senri Critical Care Medical Center, Osaka Saiseikai Senri Hospital, Suita, Japan (Y.H.); Osaka Prefectural Senshu Critical Care Medical Center, Izumisano, Japan (T.N....
Abstract
Background—
Previous animal and clinical studies suggest that bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation may be superior to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Our hypothesis was that both cardiac-only bystander resuscitation and conventional bystander CPR would improve outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of ≤15 minutes’ duration, whereas the addition of rescue breathing would improve outcomes for cardiac arrests lasting >15 minutes.
Methods and Results—
We carried out a prospective, population-based, observational study involving consecutive patients with emergency responder resuscitation attempts from May 1, 1998, through April 30, 2003. The primary outcome measure was 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between type of CPR and outcomes. Among the 4902 witnessed cardiac arrests, 783 received conventional CPR, and 544 received cardiac-only resuscitation. Excluding very-long-duration cardiac arrests (>15 minutes), the cardiac-only resuscitation yielded a higher rate of 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome than no bystander CPR (4.3% versus 2.5%; odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.95), and conventional CPR showed similar effectiveness (4.1%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.60). For the very-long-duration arrests, neurologically favorable 1-year survival was greater in the conventional CPR group, but there were few survivors regardless of the type of bystander CPR (0.3% [2 of 624], 0% [0 of 92], and 2.2% [3 of 139] in the no bystander CPR, cardiac-only CPR, and conventional CPR groups, respectively;
P
<0.05).
Conclusions—
Bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation and conventional CPR are similarly effective for most adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. For very prolonged cardiac arrests, the addition of rescue breathing may be of some help.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Physiology (medical),Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Cited by
313 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献