Arizona Department of Health Services, 150 N 18th Ave, Ste 540, Phoenix, AZ 85007, USA.
JAMA. 2010 Oct 6;304(13):1447-54. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1392.
Chest compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may be as effective as conventional CPR with rescue breathing for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
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.
Survival to hospital discharge.
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).
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.
单纯胸外按压的旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)可能与传统 CPR 加抢救性呼吸一样有效,适用于院外心脏骤停。
调查单纯胸外按压 CPR(COCPR)与传统 CPR 在院外心脏骤停患者中的存活率。
设计、地点和患者:2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2009 年 12 月 31 日期间,在亚利桑那州对至少 18 岁的院外心脏骤停患者进行了为期 5 年的前瞻性观察队列研究。使用多变量逻辑回归评估非专业旁观者 CPR 与院外心脏骤停患者存活至出院的关系。
存活至出院。
在 5272 名院外心脏骤停(非目击急救人员)患者中,有 779 名因旁观者 CPR 由医疗保健专业人员提供或心脏骤停发生在医疗机构而被排除在外。共有 4415 名患者符合所有分析标准,其中 2900 名未接受旁观者 CPR,666 名接受传统 CPR,849 名接受 COCPR。无旁观者 CPR 组、传统 CPR 组和 COCPR 组的存活率分别为 5.2%(95%可信区间[CI],4.4%-6.0%)、7.8%(95% CI,5.8%-9.8%)和 13.3%(95% CI,11.0%-15.6%)。与无 CPR 相比,传统 CPR 的调整后优势比(AOR)为 0.99(95% CI,0.69-1.43),COCPR 为 1.59(95% CI,1.18-2.13),COCPR 与传统 CPR 相比为 1.60(95% CI,1.08-2.35)。从 2005 年到 2009 年,旁观者 CPR 从 28.2%(95% CI,24.6%-31.8%)增加到 39.9%(95% CI,36.8%-42.9%;P<.001);CPR 中 COCPR 的比例从 19.6%(95% CI,13.6%-25.7%)增加到 75.9%(95% CI,71.7%-80.1%;P<.001)。总体存活率从 3.7%(95% CI,2.2%-5.2%)增加到 9.8%(95% CI,8.0%-11.6%;P<.001)。
在院外心脏骤停患者中,与传统 CPR 和无旁观者 CPR 相比,非专业人士单纯胸外按压 CPR 与存活率增加相关,而这一情况得到了公众对单纯胸外按压 CPR 的支持。