Cone D. JAMA. 2010;304:1493-1495.
The application of chest compression-only CPR by a layperson bystander was associated with increased survival in patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, results from a new analysis suggested.
Researchers observed 5,272 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during the 5-year follow-up period of the prospective, observational study. All patients were at least 18 years of age and had out-of-hospital cardiac arrests between 2005 and 2009. The relationship between layperson bystander administering CPR and survival to discharge was characterized using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, which was determined by a review of hospital records.
According to the results, 4,415 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were reported and 779 were excluded from the analysis because the CPR was administered by a health care professional or were evaluated in a medical facility; this included 666 people who received conventional CPR, 849 who received compression-only CPR and 2,900 who received no bystander CPR.
Rates of survival to hospital discharge were higher in the compression-only group (13.3%; 95% CI, 11.0-15.6) when compared with the group with no bystander intervention (5.2%; 95% CI, 4.4-6.0) and the conventional CPR group (7.8%; 95% CI, 5.8-9.8). The researchers also reported an increase in layperson CPR from 2005 to 2009 (28.2% to 39.9%, P<.001), along with an increase in the proportion of compression-only CPR during the same time period (19.6% to 75.9%, P<.001). In increase in overall survival was also reported from 2005 to 2009 (3.7% to 9.8%, P<.001).
“Implementation of a 5-year, multifaceted, statewide public education campaign that officially endorsed and encouraged chest compression-only CPR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of bystander CPR for adults who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, chest compression-only CPR was independently associated with an increased rate of survival compared with no bystander CPR or conventional CPR.”
In an accompanying editorial, David C. Cone, MD, of Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., said the findings regarding compression-only CPR were in line with those of previous trials that had suggested a theoretical advantage but did not offer much confirmatory data, adding that the results were encouraging, and no associations with neurologically impaired survival were reported.
“Taken together, these findings, along with the findings of the compression-only CPR trials and the findings reported by Bobrow et al suggesting a survival benefit, should encourage and justify continuing investigations involving compression-only CPR,” Cone wrote.