Compression-Only CPR or Standard CPR in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet at Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 07/2010; 363(5):434-42. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908991
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Emergency medical dispatchers give instructions on how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) over the telephone to callers requesting help for a patient with suspected cardiac arrest, before the arrival of emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. A previous study indicated that instructions to perform CPR consisting of only chest compression result in a treatment efficacy that is similar or even superior to that associated with instructions given to perform standard CPR, which consists of both compression and ventilation. That study, however, was not powered to assess a possible difference in survival. The aim of this prospective, randomized study was to evaluate the possible superiority of compression-only CPR over standard CPR with respect to survival.
Patients with suspected, witnessed, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to undergo either compression-only CPR or standard CPR. The primary end point was 30-day survival.
Data for the primary analysis were collected from February 2005 through January 2009 for a total of 1276 patients. Of these, 620 patients had been assigned to receive compression-only CPR and 656 patients had been assigned to receive standard CPR. The rate of 30-day survival was similar in the two groups: 8.7% (54 of 620 patients) in the group receiving compression-only CPR and 7.0% (46 of 656 patients) in the group receiving standard CPR (absolute difference for compression-only vs. standard CPR, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.2 to 4.6; P=0.29).
This prospective, randomized study showed no significant difference with respect to survival at 30 days between instructions given by an emergency medical dispatcher, before the arrival of EMS personnel, for compression-only CPR and instructions for standard CPR in patients with suspected, witnessed, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Swedish Heart–Lung Foundation and others; Karolinska Clinical Trial Registration number, CT20080012.)


Available from: Maaret Castrén, Jun 03, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The accurate prediction of outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is of major importance. The recently described Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) is well adapted to mechanically ventilated patients and does not depend on verbal response. To evaluate the ability of FOUR assessed by intensivists to accurately predict outcome in OHCA. We prospectively identified patients admitted for OHCA with a Glasgow Coma Scale below 8. Neurological assessment was performed daily. Outcome was evaluated at 6months using Glasgow-Pittsburgh Cerebral Performance Categories (GP-CPC). Eighty-five patients were included. At 6months, 19 patients (22%) had a favorable outcome, GP-CPC 1-2, and 66 (78%) had an unfavorable outcome, GP-CPC 3-5. Compared to both brainstem responses at day 3 and evolution of Glasgow Coma Scale, evolution of FOUR score over the three first days was able to predict unfavorable outcome more precisely. Thus, absence of improvement or worsening from day 1 to day 3 of FOUR had 0.88 (0.79-0.97) specificity, 0.71 (0.66-0.76) sensitivity, 0.94 (0.84-1.00) PPV and 0.54 (0.49-0.59) NPV to predict unfavorable outcome. Similarly, the brainstem response of FOUR score at 0 evaluated at day 3 had 0.94 (0.89-0.99) specificity, 0.60 (0.50-0.70) sensitivity, 0.96 (0.92-1.00) PPV and 0.47 (0.37-0.57) NPV to predict unfavorable outcome. The absence of improvement or worsening from day 1 to day 3 of FOUR evaluated by intensivists provides an accurate prognosis of poor neurological outcome in OHCA. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
    Revue Neurologique 04/2015; 171(5). DOI:10.1016/j.neurol.2015.02.013 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To prospectively describe cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and evaluate factors associated with outcome in dogs and cats with cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA). Prospective observational study. University teaching hospital. One hundred twenty-one dogs and 30 cats that underwent CPR. None. Supervising clinicians completed a data form immediately following completion of CPR. Eighty-seven (58%) animals attained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 49 (32%) had ROSC >20 minutes, 15 (10%) were alive at 24 hours, and 8 (5%) were discharged alive. Cardiovascular abnormalities were the most common suspected precipitating cause of CPA (51/151, 34%). Presence of an IV catheter before CPA (P = 0.01) and the presence of palpable pulses during CPR (P = 0.007) were both associated with ROSC. Increased time from CPA to CPR (P = 0.04), longer duration of CPR (P < 0.0001), and neurologic cause of arrest (P = 0.02) were associated with not achieving ROSC. There was no association between ROSC and the initial arrest rhythm identified on ECG, animal weight, number of people present, and ventilation or compression rate. In patients achieving ROSC, those with a "survived event" were more likely to be euthanized and less likely to experience a second CPA than those with ROSC ≤ 20 minutes. Thirty-four percent of patients submitted for necropsy had gross and histological lesions considered secondary to CPR. Early CPR interventions were associated with a greater likelihood of ROSC, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition, and initiation of CPR efforts. Although ROSC rates in this study were comparable or higher than previous human and veterinary studies, the rate of "survived events" was lower than that reported in human patients. This may suggest that advances in post CPR care could have benefits to the veterinary CPR patient in the future. © Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society 2014.
    Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 11/2014; 24(6):693-704. DOI:10.1111/vec.12250 · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Revue des Maladies Respiratoires Actualites 07/2011; 3(6):173-184. DOI:10.1016/S1877-1203(11)70058-1