Chest compression-only CPR by lay rescuers and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

CONTEXT: Chest compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may be as effective as conventional CPR with rescue breathing for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using compression-only CPR (COCPR) compared with conventional CPR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A 5-year prospective observational cohort study of survival in patients at least 18 years old with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009, in Arizona. The relationship between layperson bystander CPR and survival to hospital discharge was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 5272 adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac etiology not observed by responding emergency medical personnel, 779 were excluded because bystander CPR was provided by a health care professional or the arrest occurred in a medical facility. A total of 4415 met all inclusion criteria for analysis, including 2900 who received no bystander CPR, 666 who received conventional CPR, and 849 who received COCPR. Rates of survival to hospital discharge were 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4%-6.0%) for the no bystander CPR group, 7.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-9.8%) for conventional CPR, and 13.3% (95% CI, 11.0%-15.6%) for COCPR. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for survival for conventional CPR vs no CPR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.69-1.43), for COCPR vs no CPR, 1.59 (95% CI, 1.18-2.13), and for COCPR vs conventional CPR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.08-2.35). From 2005 to 2009, lay rescuer CPR increased from 28.2% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.8%) to 39.9% (95% CI, 36.8%-42.9%; P < .001); the proportion of CPR that was COCPR increased from 19.6% (95% CI, 13.6%-25.7%) to 75.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.1%; P < .001). Overall survival increased from 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2%-5.2%) to 9.8% (95% CI, 8.0%-11.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, layperson compression-only CPR was associated with increased survival compared with conventional CPR and no bystander CPR in this setting with public endorsement of chest compression-only CPR.

The role of intraosseous vascular access in the out-of-hospital environment (resource document to NAEMSP position statement).

Thousands of critically ill emergency patients are treated in the out-of-hospital setting in the United States every year. In many patients intravenous (IV) therapy cannot be initiated because of inadequate access to peripheral veins. In some cases, this lack of vascular access may limit benefit of medications because of late administration.[1] Both speed and overall success of vascular access are important when evaluating potential methodologies for their use in the out-of-hospital environment. Insertion of an IV cannula has been reported to require substantial time in the prehospital environment, with a recent study reporting an average successful intravenous line placement time of 4.4+/-2.8 minutes.[2] In critically ill pediatric patients, vascular access may present substantial difficulties to the provide.[3] Intraosseous access may provide a significant time saving which may benefit many critically ill patients, both by decreasing the time to achieve access and by decreasing the time to administration of indicated medications.[4] Achieving rapid administration of medications may facilitate the care of critically ill patients.[1] Devices are now available that permit rapid, accurate access to the intraosseous space. Recent changes in the American Heart Association's resuscitation guidelines state that the intraosseous route should be the first alternative to difficult or delayed intravenous access.[5] With these considerations, the role of intraosseous vascular access in the out-of-hospital environment should be reemphasized.

Prehospital use of aspirin rarely is associated with adverse events.

INTRODUCTION: Aspirin is commonly administered for acute coronary syndromes in the prehospital setting. Few studies have addressed the incidence of adverse effects associated with prehospital administration of aspirin. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of adverse events following the administration of aspirin by prehospital personnel. METHODS: Multi-center, retrospective, case series that involved all patients who received aspirin in the prehospital setting from (01 August 1999-31 January 2000). Patient encounter forms of the emergency medical services (EMS) of a metropolitan fire department were reviewed. All patients who had a potential cardiac syndrome (i.e., chest pain, dyspnea) as documented on the EMS forms were included in the review. Exclusion criteria included failure to meet inclusion criteria, and chest pain secondary to apparent non-cardiac causes (i.e., trauma). Hospital charts were reviewed from a subset of patients at the participating hospitals. The major outcome was an adverse event following prehospital administration of aspirin. This outcome was evaluated during the EMS encounter, at emergency department discharge, or at six and 24-hours post-aspirin ingestion. An adverse event secondary to aspirin ingestion was defined as anaphylaxis or allergic reactions, such as rash or respiratory changes. RESULTS: A total of 25,600 EMS encounter forms were reviewed, yielding 2,399 patients with a potential cardiac syndrome. Prior to EMS arrival, 585 patients had received aspirin, and 893 were administered aspirin by EMS personnel. No patients had an adverse event during the EMS encounter. Of these patients, 229 were transported to participating hospitals and 219 medical records were available for review with no adverse reactions recorded during their hospital course. CONCLUSION: Aspirin is rarely associated with adverse events when administered by prehospital personnel for presumed coronary syndromes.