Kyoto University Health Service, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Kyoto University Health Service, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:9-15. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.009. Epub 2015 Jul 21.
A preceding randomized controlled trial demonstrated that chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instruction by dispatcher was more effective to increase bystander CPR than conventional CPR instruction. However, the actual condition of implementation of each type of dispatcher instruction (chest compression-only CPR [CCCPR] or conventional CPR with rescue breathing) and provision of bystander CPR in real prehospital settings has not been sufficiently investigated.
This registry prospectively enrolled patients aged =>18 years suffering an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of non-traumatic causes before emergency-medical-service (EMS) arrival, who were considered as target subjects of dispatcher instruction, resuscitated by EMS personnel, and transported to medical institutions in Osaka, Japan from January 2005 through December 2012. The primary outcome measure was provision of CPR by a bystander. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors that were potentially associated with provision of bystander CPR.
Among 37,283 target subjects of dispatcher instruction, 5743 received CCCPR instruction and 13,926 received conventional CPR instruction. The proportion of CCCPR instruction increased from 5.7% in 2005 to 25.6% in 2012 (p for trend <0.001). The CCCPR instruction group received bystander CPR more frequently than conventional CPR instruction group (70.0% versus 62.1%, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, CCCPR dispatcher instruction was significantly associated with provision of bystander CPR compared with conventional CPR instruction (adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.55).
CCCPR dispatcher instruction among adult OHCA patients significantly increased the actual provision of bystander CPR.
一项先前的随机对照试验表明,调度员仅进行胸外按压心肺复苏(CPR)的指导比传统 CPR 指导更有效地增加旁观者 CPR。然而,在实际的院前环境中,尚未充分调查每种类型的调度员指导(单纯胸外按压 CPR [CCCPR] 或传统 CPR 加呼吸复苏)的实施情况和旁观者 CPR 的提供情况。
本注册研究前瞻性纳入了 2005 年 1 月至 2012 年 12 月期间在日本大阪,由急救医疗服务(EMS)人员复苏并转运至医疗机构的非创伤性原因导致院外心脏骤停(OHCA)的年龄>=18 岁的患者。这些患者被认为是调度员指导的目标对象。使用多变量逻辑回归分析来评估与旁观者 CPR 提供相关的潜在因素。
在 37283 名接受调度员指导的目标对象中,有 5743 名接受了 CCCPR 指导,13926 名接受了传统 CPR 指导。2005 年 CCCPR 指导的比例为 5.7%,到 2012 年增加到 25.6%(趋势 p<0.001)。与传统 CPR 指导组相比,CCCPR 指导组更频繁地接受旁观者 CPR(70.0%对 62.1%,p<0.001)。在多变量分析中,与传统 CPR 指导相比,CCCPR 调度员指导与旁观者 CPR 的提供显著相关(调整后的优势比 1.44,95%CI 1.34-1.55)。
在成人 OHCA 患者中,CCCPR 调度员指导显著增加了实际旁观者 CPR 的提供。