Assessment of Community Interventions for Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) remain poor. Outcomes associated with community interventions that address bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain unclear and need further study.

Objective

To examine community interventions and their association with bystander CPR and survival after OHCA.

Data sources

Literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception to December 31, 2018, was conducted. Key search terms included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, layperson, basic life support, education, cardiac arrest, and survival.

Study selection

Community intervention studies that reported on comparisons with control and differences in survival following OHCA were included. Studies that focused only on in-hospital interventions, patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, only dispatcher-assisted CPR, or provision of automated external defibrillators were excluded.

Data extraction and synthesis

Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects model. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main outcomes and measures

Thirty-day survival or survival to hospital discharge and bystander CPR rate.

Results

A total of 4480 articles were identified; of these, 15 studies were included for analysis. There were broadly 2 types of interventions: community intervention alone (5 studies) and community intervention combined with changes in health services (10 studies). Four studies involved notification systems that alerted trained lay bystanders to the location of the OHCA in addition to CPR skills training. Meta-analysis of 9 studies including 21?266 patients with OHCA found that community interventions were associated with increased survival to discharge or 30-day survival (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.57; I2?=?33%) and greater bystander CPR rate (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54; I2?=?82%). Compared with community intervention alone, community plus health service intervention was associated with a greater bystander CPR rate compared with community alone (community plus intervention: OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26-2.40 vs community alone: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31) (P?=?.01). Survival rate, however, was not significantly different between intervention types: community plus health service intervention OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68 vs community only OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50 (P?=?.21).

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, while the evidence base is limited, community-based interventions with a focus on improving bystander CPR appeared to be associated with improved survival following OHCA. Further evaluations in diverse settings are needed to enable widespread implementation of such interventions.

SUBMITTER: Yu Y 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330721 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature