Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 1;2(11):1226-1235. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.3471.
Little is known about the influence of comprehensive public health initiatives according to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) location, particularly at home, where resuscitation efforts and outcomes have historically been poor.
To describe temporal trends in bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first-responder defibrillation for OHCAs stratified by home vs public location and their association with survival and neurological outcomes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational study reviewed 8269 patients with OHCAs (5602 [67.7%] at home and 2667 [32.3%] in public) for whom resuscitation was attempted using data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014. The setting was 16 counties in North Carolina.
Patients were stratified by home vs public OHCA. Public health initiatives to improve bystander and first-responder interventions included training members of the general population in CPR and in the use of automated external defibrillators, teaching first responders about team-based CPR (eg, automated external defibrillator use and high-performance CPR), and instructing dispatch centers on recognition of cardiac arrest.
Association of resuscitation efforts with survival and neurological outcomes from 2010 through 2014.
Among home OHCA patients (n = 5602), the median age was 64 years, and 62.2% were male; among public OHCA patients (n = 2667), the median age was 68 years, and 61.5% were male. After comprehensive public health initiatives, the proportion of patients receiving bystander CPR increased at home (from 28.3% [275 of 973] to 41.3% [498 of 1206], P < .001) and in public (from 61.0% [275 of 451] to 70.5% [424 of 601], P = .01), while first-responder defibrillation increased at home (from 42.2% [132 of 313] to 50.8% [212 of 417], P = .02) but not significantly in public (from 33.1% [58 of 175] to 37.8% [93 of 246], P = .17). Survival to discharge improved for arrests at home (from 5.7% [60 of 1057] to 8.1% [100 of 1238], P = .047) and in public (from 10.8% [50 of 464] to 16.2% [98 of 604], P = .04). Compared with emergency medical services-initiated CPR and resuscitation, patients with home OHCA were significantly more likely to survive to hospital discharge if they received bystander-initiated CPR and first-responder defibrillation (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.01-2.38). Patients with arrests in public were most likely to survive if they received both bystander-initiated CPR and defibrillation (odds ratio, 4.33; 95% CI, 2.11-8.87).
After coordinated and comprehensive public health initiatives, more patients received bystander CPR and first-responder defibrillation at home and in public, which was associated with improved survival.
关于根据院外心脏骤停 (OHCA) 位置的综合公共卫生干预措施的影响,我们知之甚少,特别是在家庭环境中,因为历史上家庭环境中的复苏努力和结果都很差。
描述根据家庭与公共位置分层的旁观者心肺复苏术 (CPR) 和第一响应者除颤的时间趋势,并探讨其与生存和神经功能结局的关系。
设计、地点和参与者:本观察性研究回顾了 8269 名尝试进行复苏的 OHCA 患者(5602 名 [67.7%] 在家庭中,2667 名 [32.3%] 在公共环境中),数据来自 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2014 年 12 月 31 日期间的心脏骤停登记处 (CARES)。该研究地点为北卡罗来纳州的 16 个县。
患者根据家庭与公共 OHCA 分层。改善旁观者和第一响应者干预措施的公共卫生举措包括对普通人群进行 CPR 和自动体外除颤器使用的培训、教导第一响应者团队 CPR(例如,自动体外除颤器使用和高性能 CPR)以及教导调度中心识别心脏骤停。
2010 年至 2014 年期间复苏努力与生存和神经功能结局的关系。
在家庭 OHCA 患者中(n=5602),中位年龄为 64 岁,62.2%为男性;在公共 OHCA 患者中(n=2667),中位年龄为 68 岁,61.5%为男性。在综合公共卫生举措实施后,家庭中接受旁观者 CPR 的患者比例增加(从 28.3%(973 人中的 275 人)增加到 41.3%(1206 人中的 498 人),P<0.001),公共环境中接受旁观者 CPR 的患者比例也增加(从 61.0%(451 人中的 275 人)增加到 70.5%(601 人中的 424 人),P=0.01),而家庭中第一响应者除颤的比例增加(从 42.2%(313 人中的 132 人)增加到 50.8%(417 人中的 212 人),P=0.02),但公共环境中除颤的比例没有显著增加(从 33.1%(175 人中的 58 人)增加到 37.8%(246 人中的 93 人),P=0.17)。家庭中发生的心脏骤停患者的存活率有所提高(从 5.7%(1057 人中的 60 人)提高到 8.1%(1238 人中的 100 人),P=0.047),公共环境中发生的心脏骤停患者的存活率也有所提高(从 10.8%(464 人中的 50 人)提高到 16.2%(604 人中的 98 人),P=0.04)。与紧急医疗服务发起的 CPR 和复苏相比,如果患者接受旁观者发起的 CPR 和第一响应者除颤,家庭中发生 OHCA 的患者更有可能存活到出院(优势比,1.55;95%置信区间,1.01-2.38)。如果公共环境中发生的心脏骤停患者同时接受旁观者发起的 CPR 和除颤,则最有可能存活(优势比,4.33;95%置信区间,2.11-8.87)。
在协调和综合的公共卫生举措实施后,家庭和公共环境中接受旁观者 CPR 和第一响应者除颤的患者更多,这与生存改善有关。