Mathematical Model Predicting the Potential Impact of Various Community Bystander CPR Rates on Overall Survival from Cardiac Arrest

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is prevalent in the UK. Reported survival is lower than in countries with comparable healthcare systems; a better understanding of outcome determinants may identify areas for improvement. Aim: to compare differential determinants of survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge for traumatic (TCA) and non-traumatic cardiac arrest (NCTA).Methods/DesignAn analysis of 9109 OHCA in East of England between 1 January 2015 and 31 July 2017. Univariate descriptives and multivariable analysis were used to understand the determinants of survival for NTCA and TCA. Two Utstein outcome variables were used: survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge. Data reported as number (percentage), number (percentage (95% CI)) and median (IQR) as appropriate. Continuous data have been analysed with a Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical data have been analysed with a χ2 test. Analyses were performed using the R statistical programming language.Results/ConclusionsThe incidence of OHCA was 55.1 per 100 000 population/year. The overall survival to hospital admission was 27.6% (95%CI 26.7% to 28.6%) and the overall survival to discharge was 7.9% (95%CI 7.3% to 8.5%). Survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge were both greater in the NTCA group compared with the TCA group: 27.9% vs 19.3% p=0.001, and 8.0% vs 3.8% p=0.012 respectively.Determinants of NTCA and TCA survival were different, and varied according to the outcome examined. In NTCA, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was associated with survival at discharge but not at admission, and the likelihood of bystander-CPR was dependent on geographical socioeconomic status.NTCA and TCA are clinically distinct entities with different predictors for outcome and should be reported separately. Determinants of survival to hospital admission and discharge differ in a way that likely reflects the determinants of neurological injury. Bystander CPR public engagement may be best focused in more deprived areas.

Download Full-text

Prehospital determinants of successful resuscitation after traumatic and non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Emergency Medicine Journal ◽

10.1136/emermed-2018-208165 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 36 (6) ◽

pp. 333-339 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Ed B G Barnard ◽

Daniel D Sandbach ◽

Tracy L Nicholls ◽

Alastair W Wilson ◽

Ari Ercole

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Hospital Admission ◽

Hospital Discharge ◽

Multivariable Analysis ◽

Neurological Injury ◽

Successful Resuscitation ◽

Traumatic Cardiac Arrest ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BackgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is prevalent in the UK. Reported survival is lower than in countries with comparable healthcare systems; a better understanding of outcome determinants may identify areas for improvement.MethodsAn analysis of 9109 OHCA attended in East of England between 1 January 2015 and 31 July 2017. Univariate descriptives and multivariable analysis were used to understand the determinants of survival for non-traumatic cardiac arrest (NTCA) and traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA). Two Utstein outcome variables were used: survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge.ResultsThe incidence of OHCA was 55.1 per 100 000 population/year. The overall survival to hospital admission was 27.6% (95% CI 26.7% to 28.6%) and the overall survival to discharge was 7.9% (95% CI 7.3% to 8.5%). Survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge were both greater in the NTCA group compared with the TCA group: 27.9% vs 19.3% p=0.001, and 8.0% vs 3.8% p=0.012 respectively.Determinants of NTCA and TCA survival were different, and varied according to the outcome examined. In NTCA, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was associated with survival at discharge but not at admission, and the likelihood of bystander CPR was dependent on geographical socioeconomic status. An air ambulance was associated with increased survival to both hospital admission and discharge in NTCA, but only with survival to admission in TCA.ConclusionNTCA and TCA are clinically distinct entities with different predictors for outcome—future OHCA reports should aim to separate arrest aetiologies. Determinants of survival to hospital admission and discharge differ in a way that likely reflects the determinants of neurological injury. Bystander CPR public engagement may be best focused in more deprived areas.

Download Full-text

Abstract MP73: Emergency Call First Strategy versus Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation First Strategy for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.137.suppl_1.mp73 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 137 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Tatsuma Fukuda ◽

Naoko Ohashi-Fukuda ◽

Yutaka Kondo ◽

Kei Hayashida ◽

Ichiro Kukita

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Cerebral Performance Category ◽

Population Based ◽

Spontaneous Circulation ◽

Emergency Call ◽

Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Lay rescuers have a crucial role in successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), specifically the first three links in the chain of survival, for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, randomized controlled trials on the priority of emergency call (Call first) versus bystander CPR (CPR first) do not exist, and comparative data are very limited. We aimed to assess the association between the priority of bystander’s action (Call first vs. CPR first) and neurologic outcome after OHCA. Methods: This nationwide population-based study of patients who experienced OHCA from January 2005 to December 2014 was based on the data from the Japanese government-managed registry of OHCA. Patients provided bystander’s action (both emergency call and bystander CPR) within 1 minute of witness were included, and Call first strategy was compared with CPR first strategy. The primary outcome was one-month neurologically favorable survival, defined as a Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 1(good performance) or 2(moderate disability). The secondary outcomes were prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and one-month overall survival. Results: A total of 25,840 patients were included; 4,430 (17.1%) were treated with Call first approach, and 21,410 (82.9%) were treated with CPR first approach. Among total cohort, 2,696 (10.4%) survived with neurologically favorable status one month after OHCA. In the propensity score-matched cohort, one-month neurologically favorable survival was lower among Call first group compared with CPR first group: 364 of 4,430 patients (8.2%) vs. 457 of 4,430 patients (10.3%), respectively (Risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.91). Similar associations were observed for one-month overall survival (RR, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.82-0.99), although there were no significant differences in prehospital ROSC (RR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.86-1.02) between the Call first and CPR first groups. In subgroup analyses, the association between delayed bystander CPR and worse neurological outcome did not change regardless of subgroup characteristics. Conclusions: In witnessed OHCA, Call first approach was associated with a decreased chance of one-month neurologically favorable survival compared with CPR first approach. These observational findings warrant a randomized clinical trial to determine the priority of emergency call or bystander CPR for OHCA.

Download Full-text

Effect of chest-compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the likelihood of initial shockable rhythm after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a propensity matching analysis

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1829 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

A Funada ◽

Y Goto ◽

T Maeda ◽

H Okada ◽

M Takamura

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Chest Compression ◽

Proportional Hazards ◽

Proportional Hazards Model ◽

Cox Proportional Hazards ◽

Cox Proportional Hazards Model ◽

Shockable Rhythm ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Bystander Cpr

Abstract Background/Introduction Shockable rhythm after cardiac arrest is highly expected after early initiation of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) owing to increased coronary perfusion. However, the relationship between bystander CPR and initial shockable rhythm in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains unclear. We hypothesized that chest-compression-only CPR (CC-CPR) before emergency medical service (EMS) arrival has an equivalent effect on the likelihood of initial shockable rhythm to the standard CPR (chest compression plus rescue breathing [S-CPR]). Purpose We aimed to examine the rate of initial shockable rhythm and 1-month outcomes in patients who received bystander CPR after OHCA. Methods The study included 59,688 patients (age, ≥18 years) who received bystander CPR after an OHCA with a presumed cardiac origin witnessed by a layperson in a prospectively recorded Japanese nationwide Utstein-style database from 2013 to 2017. Patients who received public-access defibrillation before arrival of the EMS personnel were excluded. The patients were divided into CC-CPR (n=51,520) and S-CPR (n=8168) groups according to the type of bystander CPR received. The primary end point was initial shockable rhythm recorded by the EMS personnel just after arrival at the site. The secondary end point was the 1-month outcomes (survival and neurologically intact survival) after OHCA. In the statistical analyses, a Cox proportional hazards model was applied to reflect the different bystander CPR durations before/after propensity score (PS) matching. Results The crude rate of the initial shockable rhythm in the CC-CPR group (21.3%, 10,946/51,520) was significantly higher than that in the S-CPR group (17.6%, 1441/8168, p<0.0001) before PS matching. However, no significant difference in the rate of initial shockable rhythm was found between the 2 groups after PS matching (18.3% [1493/8168] vs 17.6% [1441/8168], p=0.30). In the Cox proportional hazards model, CC-CPR was more negatively associated with the initial shockable rhythm before PS matching (unadjusted hazards ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–0.99; p=0.012; adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89–0.94; p<0.0001) than S-CPR. After PS matching, however, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (adjusted HR of CC-CPR compared with S-CPR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94–1.00; p=0.09). No significant differences were found between C-CPR and S-CPR in the 1-month outcomes after PS matching as follows, respectively: survival, 8.5% and 10.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79–1.00; p=0.07; cerebral performance category 1 or 2, 5.5% and 6.9%; adjusted odds, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74–1.00; p=0.052. Conclusions Compared with S-CPR, the CC-CPR before EMS arrival had an equivalent multivariable-adjusted association with the likelihood of initial shockable rhythm in the patients with OHCA due to presumed cardiac causes that was witnessed by a layperson. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

Outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Beijing: a 5-year cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041917 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e041917

Author(s):

Fei Shao ◽

Haibin Li ◽

Shengkui Ma ◽

Dou Li ◽

Chunsheng Li

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Urban Areas ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Term Survival ◽

Shockable Rhythm ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the trends in outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Beijing over 5 years.DesignCross-sectional study.MethodsAdult patients with OHCA of all aetiologies who were treated by the Beijing emergency medical service (EMS) between January 2013 and December 2017 were analysed. Data were collected using the Utstein Style. Cases were followed up for 1 year. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and logistic regression was performed.ResultsOverall, 5016 patients with OHCA underwent attempted resuscitation by the EMS in urban areas of Beijing during the study period. Survival to hospital discharge was 1.2% in 2013 and 1.6% in 2017 (adjusted rate ratio=1.0, p for trend=0.60). Survival to admission and neurological outcome at discharge did not significantly improve from 2013 to 2017. Patient characteristics and the aetiology and location of cardiac arrest were consistent, but there was a decrease in the initial shockable rhythm (from 6.5% to 5.6%) over the 5 years. The rate of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) increased steadily over the years (from 10.4% to 19.4%).ConclusionSurvival after OHCA in urban areas of Beijing did not improve significantly over 5 years, with long-term survival being unchanged, although the rate of bystander CPR increased steadily, which enhanced the outcomes of patients who underwent bystander CPR.

Download Full-text

Abstract 184: AED Application in Non-Shockable Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Does Not Reduce Survival

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.138.suppl_2.184 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽

Author(s):

Ross A Pollack ◽

Siobhan P Brown ◽

Thomas Rea ◽

Peter J Kudenchuk ◽

Myron L Weisfeldt

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

Neurological Status ◽

Relative Safety ◽

Initial Rhythm ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Rhythm Analysis ◽

In Transit ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: It is well established that AEDs improve outcome in shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). An increasing proportion (now the majority) of OHCAs present with non-shockable rhythms. Survival from non-shockable OHCA depends on high-quality CPR in transit to definitive care. Studies of AED use in non-shockable in-hospital arrest (as opposed to OHCA) have shown reduced survival with AED application possibly due to CPR interruptions to apply pads and perform rhythm analysis. We sought to determine whether AED application in non-shockable public, witnessed OHCA has a significant association with survival to discharge. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of OHCA from 2010-2015 at 10 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium centers. All adult, public, witnessed non-shockable OHCAs were included. Non-shockable arrest was defined as no shock delivered by the AED or by review of defibrillator tracings (10%). The initial rhythm on EMS arrival was used to confirm the rhythm. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurological status (modified rankin score <3). The OR was adjusted for the Utstein variables. Results: During the study period there were 1,597 non-shockable public, witnessed OHCA, 9.8% of which had an AED applied. The initial rhythm on EMS arrival was PEA or asystole in 86% of cases. Significantly more OHCA in the AED applied group had CPR performed. 6.5% of those without an AED applied survived with favorable neurologic status compared to 9% with an AED. After adjustment for the Utstein variables including bystander CPR, the aOR for survival with favorable neurologic outcome was 1.38 (95% CI:0.72-2.65). Conclusion: After adjusting for patient characteristics and bystander CPR, the application of an AED in non-shockable public witnessed OHCA had no significant association with survival or neurological outcome supporting the relative safety and potential benefit of AED application in non-shockable OHCA.

Download Full-text

Abstract 170: Challenges in Implementing an ECPR Program for Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.138.suppl_2.170 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽

Author(s):

Meshe Chonde ◽

Jeremiah Escajeda ◽

Jonathan Elmer ◽

Frank X Guyette ◽

Arthur Boujoukos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Implementation Challenges ◽

Shockable Rhythm ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Stay And Play ◽

Load And Go ◽

Mechanical Cpr ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) can treat cardiac arrest refractory to conventional therapy. Many institutions are interested in developing their own ECPR program. However, there are challenges in logistics and implementation. Hypothesis: Development of an ECPR team and identification of UPMC Presbyterian as a receiving center will increase recognition of potential ECPR candidates. Methods: We developed an infrastructure of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Medic Command, and an in-hospital ECPR team. We identified inclusion criteria for patients with an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) likely to have a reversible arrest etiology and developed them into a simple checklist. These criteria were: witnessed arrest with bystander CPR, shockable rhythm, and ages 18 to 60. We trained local EMS crews to screen patients and review the checklist with a Command Physician prior to transport to our hospital. Results: From October 2015 to March 31 st 2018, there were 1165 dispatches for OHCA, of which 664 (57%) were treated and transported to the hospital and 120 to our institution. Of these, five patients underwent ECPR. Of the remaining cases, 64 (53%) had nonshockable rhythms, 48 (40%) were unwitnessed arrests, 50 (42%) were over age 60 and the remaining 20 (17%) had no documented reasons for exclusion. Prehospital CPR duration was 26 [IQR 25-40] min. Four patients (80%) underwent mechanical CPR with LUCAS device. Time from arrest to arrive on scene was 5 [IQR 4-6] min and time call MD command was 13 [IQR 7-21] min. Time to transport was 20 [IQR 19-21] min. Time from arrest to initiation of ECMO was 63 [IQR 59-69] min. Conclusions: ECPR is a relatively infrequent occurrence. Implementation challenges include prompt identification of patients with reversible OHCA causes, preferential transport to an ECPR capable facility and changing the focus of EMS in these select patients from a “stay and play” to a “load and go” mentality.

Download Full-text

Abstract P80: Short-term Outcomes of Vasopressin Administerd with Epinephrine versus Epinephrine Alone in ED for Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest

Circulation ◽

10.1161/circ.118.suppl_18.s_1462-c ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽

Author(s):

Tae Yun Kim ◽

Sun Woo Lee ◽

Kyuseok Kim ◽

Joong Eui Rhee ◽

Sung Koo Jung

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Spontaneous Circulation ◽

National Registry ◽

Controlled Clinical Trial ◽

Emergency Medical Service System ◽

Short Term ◽

Combined Administration ◽

Before And After ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) victims are increasing, but emergency medical service system (EMSS) is not ready for them in Korea. A previous randomized, controlled clinical trial has suggested that vasopressin followed epinephrine was superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole. According to the Korean national registry of OOHCA, patients with asystole were more than two thirds of them. In Korean EMSS, no drugs are permitted to administer in the prehospital phase by law. Thereafter epinephrine or vasopressin cannot be administered until patients are transported to emergency departments (EDs). This study was to evaluate whether the combined administration of vasopressin and epinephrine in ED for OOHCA patients would increase the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival discharge. Methods: From October 2007 to May 2008, we changed the CPR protocol in adult, nontraumatic OOHCA that 40 U of vasopressin was administered as soon as possible after the first dose of epinephrine (the after group). Cardiac arrest data were collected using the Utstein template. Data from January to September 2007, when vasopressin has not been used, were also collected for comparative analysis (the before group). These two groups were compared in terms of ROSC, and survival discharge Results: There were 45 and 50 patients in the before and after groups, respectively. There was no significant differences in the initial ECG rhythm of asystole (67% vs 78%), witnessed arrest (73% vs 72%), bystander CPR (16% vs 10%), time from collapse to BLS time (6 min vs 8.5 min), and time from collapse to study drugs (23 min vs 26.5 min). The rate of sustained ROSC was similar between the before and after groups (53% vs 48%, P=0.604) as was the survival discharge (27% vs 14%, P=0.123). Conclusions: Vasopressin with administerd with epinephrine does not increase the rate of ROSC nor the survival discharge.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Western Journal of Emergency Medicine ◽

10.5811/westjem.2021.3.50932 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 810-819

Author(s):

Mack Sheraton ◽

John Columbus ◽

Salim Surani ◽

Ravinder Chopra ◽

Rahul Kashyap

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Chest Compression ◽

Relative Effectiveness ◽

Sufficient Evidence ◽

Mechanical Compression ◽

Mechanical Chest Compression ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Meta Regression

Introduction: Our goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods: We searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000–October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. Results: A total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates’ summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance. Conclusion: Mechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.

Download Full-text

Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality: Potential for Improvements in Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation

Journal of the American Heart Association ◽

10.1161/jaha.120.017930 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Richard Chocron ◽

Julia Jobe ◽

Sally Guan ◽

Madeleine Kim ◽

Mia Shigemura ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Arrest ◽

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Performance Metrics ◽

Medical System ◽

Emergency Medical System ◽

Compression Rate ◽

Emergency Medical ◽

Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽

Bystander Cpr ◽

Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a critical intervention to improve survival following out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. We evaluated the quality of bystander CPR and whether performance varied according to the number of bystanders or provision of telecommunicator CPR (TCPR). Methods and Results We investigated non‐traumatic out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest occurring in a large metropolitan emergency medical system during a 6‐month period. Information about bystander care was ascertained through review of the 9‐1‐1 recordings in addition to emergency medical system and hospital records to determine bystander CPR status (none versus TCPR versus unassisted), the number of bystanders on‐scene, and CPR performance metrics of compression fraction and compression rate. Of the 428 eligible out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, 76.4% received bystander CPR including 43.7% unassisted CPR and 56.3% TCPR; 35.2% had one bystander, 33.3% had 2 bystanders, and 31.5% had ≥3 bystanders. Overall compression fraction was 59% with a compression rate of 88 per minute. CPR differed according to TCPR status (fraction=52%, rate=87 per minute for TCPR versus fraction=69%, rate=102 for unassisted CPR, P <0.05 for each comparison) and the number of bystanders (fraction=55%, rate=87 per minute for 1 bystander, fraction=59%, rate=89 for 2 bystanders, fraction=65%, rate=97 for ≥3 bystanders, test for trend P <0.05 for each metric). Additional bystander actions were uncommon to include rotation of compressors (3.1%) or application of an automated external defibrillator (8.0%). Conclusions Bystander CPR quality as gauged by compression fraction and rate approached guideline goals though performance depended upon the type of CPR and number of bystanders.

Download Full-text