Svensson L, Bohm K, Castren M, et al. 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: 55.87). 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.)

Download full-text


Available from: Maaret Castrén, Sep 25, 2015
1 Follower
61 Reads
  • Source
    • "Each year, approximately 450,000 people in the USA and 50,000 in France suffer from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) [1] [2] [3]. The main part of these patients will develop anoxo-ischemic encephalopathy that represents about 25% of the cause of comatose states in ICU [4]. "
    [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 · 0.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Among the 16 citations not pertaining to compression-only CPR survival, the majority (10) attended primarily to attitudes and perceptions among laypeople and professionals to perform resuscitative manoeuvres. This revealed 6 original studies (2 cited by the ERC [15,16], 1 cited by the AHA [17] and 3 cited by both organizations [18-20]) and 3 review citations. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival. In settings with prolonged ambulance response times, skilled bystanders may be even more crucial. In 2010, American Heart Association (AHA) and European Resuscitation Council (ERC) introduced compression-only CPR as an alternative to conventional bystander CPR under some circumstances. The purpose of this citation review and document analysis is to determine whether the evidentiary basis for 2010 AHA and ERC guidelines attends to settings with prolonged ambulance response times or no formal ambulance dispatch services. Primary and secondary citations referring to epidemiological research comparing adult OHCA survival based on the type of bystander CPR were included in the analysis. Details extracted from the citations included a study description and primary outcome measure, the geographic location in which the study occurred, EMS response times, the role of dispatchers, and main findings and summary statistics regarding rates of survival among patients receiving no CPR, conventional CPR or compression-only CPR. The inclusion criteria were met by 10 studies. 9 studies took place exclusively in urban settings. Ambulance dispatchers played an integral role in 7 studies. The cited studies suggest either no survival benefit or harm arising from compression-only CPR in settings with extended ambulance response times. The evidentiary basis for 2010 AHA and ERC bystander CPR guidelines does not attend to settings without rapid ambulance response times or dispatch services. Standardized bystander CPR guidelines may require adaptation or reconsideration in these settings.
    Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 04/2013; 21(1):32. DOI:10.1186/1757-7241-21-32 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Database searches, snowballing and contacts with experts yielded a total of 32 citations (Figure 1). Excluding 29 non-pertinent titles or abstracts, we retrieved in complete form and assessed according to the selection criteria 3 studies [13,14,15]. which were included in the final analysis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has a low survival rate to hospital discharge. Recent studies compared a simplified form of CPR, based on chest compression alone versus standard CPR including ventilation. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, focusing on survival at hospital discharge. We extensively searched the published literature on out-of hospital CPR for non traumatic cardiac arrest in different databases. We identified only three randomized trials on this topic, including witnessed and not-witnessed cardiac arrests. When pooling them together with a meta-analytic approach, we found that there is already clinical and statistical evidence to support the superiority of the compression-only CPR in terms of survival at hospital discharge, as 211/1842 (11.5%) patients in the chest compression alone group versus 178/1895 (9.4%) in the standard CPR group were alive at hospital discharge: odds ratio from both Peto and DerSimonian-Laird methods =0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.99), p for effect =0.04, p for heterogeneity =0.69, inconsistency =0%). Available evidence strongly support the superiority of bystander compression-only CPR. Reasons for the best efficacy of chest compression-only CPR include a better willingness to start CPR by bystanders, the low quality of mouth-to-mouth ventilation and a detrimental effect of too long interruptions of chest compressions during ventilation. Based on our findings, compression-only CPR should be recommended as the preferred CPR technique performed by untrained bystander.
    02/2010; 2(4):279-85.
Show more