CPR with chest compression alone or with rescue breathing.

BACKGROUND: The role of rescue breathing in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by a layperson is uncertain. We hypothesized that the dispatcher instructions to bystanders to provide chest compression alone would result in improved survival as compared with instructions to provide chest compression plus rescue breathing. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial of dispatcher instructions to bystanders for performing CPR. The patients were persons 18 years of age or older with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for whom dispatchers initiated CPR instruction to bystanders. Patients were randomly assigned to receive chest compression alone or chest compression plus rescue breathing. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included a favorable neurologic outcome at discharge. RESULTS: Of the 1941 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 981 were randomly assigned to receive chest compression alone and 960 to receive chest compression plus rescue breathing. We observed no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of patients who survived to hospital discharge (12.5% with chest compression alone and 11.0% with chest compression plus rescue breathing, P=0.31) or in the proportion who survived with a favorable neurologic outcome in the two sites that assessed this secondary outcome (14.4% and 11.5%, respectively; P=0.13). Prespecified subgroup analyses showed a trend toward a higher proportion of patients surviving to hospital discharge with chest compression alone as compared with chest compression plus rescue breathing for patients with a cardiac cause of arrest (15.5% vs. 12.3%, P=0.09) and for those with shockable rhythms (31.9% vs. 25.7%, P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Dispatcher instruction consisting of chest compression alone did not increase the survival rate overall, although there was a trend toward better outcomes in key clinical subgroups. The results support a strategy for CPR performed by laypersons that emphasizes chest compression and minimizes the role of rescue breathing. (Funded in part by the Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine and the Medic One Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00219687.)

Dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation: risks for patients not in cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructions can increase bystander CPR and thereby increase the rate of survival from cardiac arrest. The risk of bystander CPR for patients not in arrest is uncertain and has implications for how assertive dispatch is in instructing CPR. We determined the frequency of dispatcher-assisted CPR for patients not in arrest and the frequency and severity of injury related to chest compressions. METHODS AND RESULTS: The investigation was a prospective cohort study of adult patients not in cardiac arrest for whom dispatchers provided CPR instructions in King County, Washington, between June 1, 2004, and January 31, 2007. The study focused on those who received chest compressions. Information was collected through review of the audio and written dispatch report, written emergency medical services report, hospital record, and telephone survey. Of the 1700 patients for whom dispatcher CPR instructions were initiated, 55% (938 of 1700) were in arrest, 45% (762 of 1700) were not in arrest, and 18% (313 of 1700) were not in arrest and received bystander chest compressions. Of the 247 not in arrest who received chest compressions and had complete outcome ascertainment, 12% (29 of 247) experienced discomfort, and 2% (6 of 247) sustained injuries likely or possibly caused by bystander CPR. Only 2% (5 of 247) suffered a fracture, and no patients suffered visceral organ injury. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, the frequency of serious injury related to dispatcher-assisted bystander CPR among nonarrest patients was low. When coupled with the established benefits of bystander CPR among those with arrest, these results support an assertive program of dispatcher-assisted CPR.

Public access defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a community-based study.

BACKGROUND: The dissemination and use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) beyond traditional emergency medical services (EMS) into the community has not been fully evaluated. We evaluated the frequency and outcome of non-EMS AED use in a community experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: The investigation was a cohort study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases due to underlying heart disease treated by public access defibrillation (PAD) between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2002, in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Public access defibrillation was defined as out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated with AED application by persons outside traditional emergency medical services. The EMS of Seattle and King County developed a voluntary Community Responder AED Program and registry of PAD AEDs. During the 4 years, 475 AEDs were placed in a variety of settings, and more than 4000 persons were trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and AED operation. A total of 50 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were treated by PAD before EMS arrival, which represented 1.33% (50/3754) of all EMS-treated cardiac arrests. The proportion treated by PAD AED increased each year, from 0.82% in 1999 to 1.12% in 2000, 1.41% in 2001, and 2.05% in 2002 (P=0.019, test for trend). Half of the 50 persons treated with PAD survived to hospital discharge, with similar survival for nonmedical settings (45% [14/31]) and out-of-hospital medical settings (58% [11/19]). CONCLUSIONS: PAD was involved in only a small but increasing proportion of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

Factors impeding dispatcher-assisted telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Dispatcher-assisted telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction can increase the proportion of sudden cardiac arrest victims who receive bystander CPR and has been associated with improved survival. Most sudden cardiac arrest victims, however, do not receive bystander CPR. The study objective was to examine factors that may impede implementation of telephone CPR. METHODS: We reviewed dispatcher audio recordings and emergency medical services reports for 404 cases of sudden cardiac arrest that occurred from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2002, in the study county to assess the phase (1, instructions not offered; 2, instructions offered but declined; or 3, instructions offered and accepted but CPR not implemented) and specific factors within each phase that potentially impede telephone CPR. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent (99/404) of victims received bystander CPR without dispatch assistance, 34% (139/404) received telephone CPR, and 41% (166/404) did not receive bystander CPR. Each phase of telephone CPR process impeded the implementation of CPR: (1) instructions not offered in 48% (80/166); (2) instructions offered but declined in 31% (52/166); and (3) instructions offered and accepted but CPR not implemented in 21% (34/166). During the first phase, telephone CPR was potentially impeded most frequently because the victim was reported to have signs of life (51/80, 64%); during the second and third phases, telephone CPR was most often impeded because of bystander physical limitation (32/86, 37%). Emotional distress, disease transmission, disagreeable victim characteristics, or medicolegal concerns uncommonly impeded telephone CPR (10/86, 12%). CONCLUSION: Factors potentially impeding telephone CPR can be identified. Although many are logistically challenging, some may be addressable and hence provide opportunities to strengthen the chain of survival.