Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
PLoS One. 2020 May 15;15(5):e0232999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232999. eCollection 2020.
This study aims to test the association between the place-provider-matrix (PPM) of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
Adult patients with OHCA with a cardiac etiology from 2012 to 2017 in Korea were analyzed, excluding patients who had unknown information on place, type of bystander, or outcome. The PPM was categorized into six groups by two types of places (public versus home) and three types of providers (trained responder (TR), family bystander, and layperson bystander). Outcomes were survival to discharge and good cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1 or 2. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to test the association between PPM group and outcomes with adjustment for potential confounders to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (reference = Public-TR).
A total of 73,057 patients were analyzed and were categorized into Public-TR (0.6%), Home-TR (0.3%), Public-Family (1.8%), Home-Family (79.8%), Public-Layperson (9.9%), and Home-Layperson (7.6%) groups. Compared with the Public-TR group, the AORs (95% CIs) for survival to discharge were 0.61 (0.35-1.05) in the Home-TR group, 0.85 (0.62-1.17) in the Public-Family group, 0.38 (0.29-0.50) in the Home-Family group, 1.12 (0.85-1.49) in the Public-Layperson group, and 0.42 (0.31-0.57) in the Home-Layperson group. The AORs (95% CIs) for good CPC were 0.58 (0.27-1.25) in the Home-TR group, 0.88 (0.61-1.27) in the Public-Family group, 0.38 (0.28-0.52) in the Home-Family group, 1.20 (0.87-1.65) in the Public-Layperson group, and 0.42 (0.30-0.59) in the Home-Layperson group.
The OHCA outcomes of the Home-Family and Home-Layperson groups were worse than those of the Public-TR group. This finding suggests that OHCA occurring in private places with family or layperson bystanders requires a new strategy, such as dispatching trained responders to the scene to improve CPR outcomes.
本研究旨在检验旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)的场所-提供者-矩阵(PPM)与院外心脏骤停(OHCA)结局之间的关联。
分析了 2012 年至 2017 年期间韩国因心脏原因导致 OHCA 的成年患者,排除了场所、旁观者类型或结局信息未知的患者。PPM 分为两组场所(公共与家庭)和三组提供者(受过培训的响应者(TR)、家庭旁观者和非专业旁观者)。结局为出院时存活和良好的脑功能预后分类(CPC)为 1 或 2 级。采用多变量逻辑回归分析检验 PPM 组与结局之间的关联,并对潜在混杂因素进行调整,以计算调整后的优势比(AOR)和 95%置信区间(CI)(参考=公共-TR)。
共分析了 73057 例患者,分为公共-TR(0.6%)、家庭-TR(0.3%)、公共-家庭(1.8%)、家庭-家庭(79.8%)、公共-非专业旁观者(9.9%)和家庭-非专业旁观者(7.6%)组。与公共-TR 组相比,家庭-TR 组出院时存活的 AOR(95%CI)为 0.61(0.35-1.05),公共-家庭组为 0.85(0.62-1.17),家庭-家庭组为 0.38(0.29-0.50),公共-非专业旁观者组为 1.12(0.85-1.49),家庭-非专业旁观者组为 0.42(0.31-0.57)。良好 CPC 的 AOR(95%CI)为家庭-TR 组 0.58(0.27-1.25),公共-家庭组 0.88(0.61-1.27),家庭-家庭组 0.38(0.28-0.52),公共-非专业旁观者组 1.20(0.87-1.65),家庭-非专业旁观者组 0.42(0.30-0.59)。
家庭-家庭和家庭-非专业旁观者组的 OHCA 结局比公共-TR 组差。这一发现表明,发生在私人场所且有家人或非专业旁观者在场的 OHCA 需要新的策略,例如派遣受过培训的响应者到现场以改善 CPR 结局。