Dataset Information

Protocol for a cohort study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate and incidence of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is dependent on early recognition, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation. The purpose of CPR is to maintain some blood flow until the arrival of the emergency medical services (EMS). Our concern is that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on the number of patients who get CPR before EMS arrival. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of bystander CPR during the pandemic with data from before the pandemic.

Methods

The protocol is for a retrospective cohort study where data from existing registries will be used. All participating registries will share aggregated data from 2017 to 2020, and the study team will compare the results from 2020 to results from 2017 to 2019. Due to the General Data Protection Regulation, each participating registry will check for completeness and plausibility, and perform all aggregation of data locally. In the following analysis different registries will be considered as random samples and analysed by means of a generalized linear mixed effects model with Poisson distribution for the outcome, the population covered as offsets, and different registries as random factors.

Discussion

This study does not present the prospect of direct benefit to the patient, but does provide an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the epidemiology of bystander CPR for OHCA patients during a pandemic. By comparing data during the pandemic with already collected information in established registries we believe we can gain valuable information about changes in public response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

SUBMITTER: Tjelmeland IBM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215481 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOutcomes 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.ObjectiveTo examine community interventions and their association with bystander CPR and survival after OHCA.Data sourcesLiterature 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 selectionCommunity 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 synthesisPooled 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 measuresThirty-day survival or survival to hospital discharge and bystander CPR rate.ResultsA 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognosis in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at hospital arrival is often considered dismal. The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) for perfusion enhancement during resuscitation has shown variable results. We aimed to investigate outcome in refractory OHCA patients managed conservatively without use of eCPR. METHODS:We included consecutive OHCA patients with refractory arrest or prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in the Copenhagen area in 2002-2011. RESULTS:A total of 3992 OHCA patients with resuscitation attempts were included; in 2599, treatment was terminated prehospital, and 1393 (35%) were brought to the hospital either with ROSC (n?=?1285, 92%) or with refractory OHCA (n?=?108, 8%). Of patients brought in with refractory OHCA, 56 (52%) achieved ROSC in the emergency department. There were no differences between patients with refractory OHCA or prehospital ROSC with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, or etiology of OHCA. Time to emergency medical services (EMS) arrival was similar, whereas time to ROSC (when ROSC was achieved) was longer in refractory OHCA patients (EMS, 6 (5-9] vs. 7 [5-10] min, p?=?0.8; ROSC, 15 [9-22] vs. 27 [20-41] min, p?<?0.001). Independent factors associated with transport with refractory OHCA instead of prehospital termination of therapy were OHCA in public (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8]; p?<?0.001), witnessed OHCA (OR, 3.7 [2.0-7.1]; p?<?0.001), shockable rhythm (OR, 3.0 [1.9-4.7]; p?<?0.001), younger age (OR, 1.2 [1.1-1.2]; p?<?0.001), and later calendar year (OR, 1.4 [1.2-1.6]; p?<?0.001). Thirty-day survival was 20% in patients with refractory OHCA compared with 42% in patients with prehospital ROSC (p?<?0.001). Four of 28 refractory OHCA patients with duration of resuscitation >?60 min achieved ROSC. No difference in favorable neurological outcome in patients surviving to discharge was found (prehospital ROSC 84% vs. refractory OHCA 86%; p?=?0.7). CONCLUSIONS:Survival after refractory OHCA with ongoing CPR at hospital arrival was significantly lower than among patients with prehospital ROSC. Despite a lower survival, the majority of survivors with both refractory OHCA and prehospital ROSC were discharged with a similar degree of favorable neurological outcome, indicating that continued efforts in spite of refractory OHCA are not in vain and may still lead to favorable outcome even without eCPR.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (B-CPR) delivery and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest vary at the neighborhood level, with lower survival seen in predominantly black neighborhoods. Although the Hispanic population is the fastest-growing minority population in the United States, few studies have assessed whether the proportion of Hispanic residents in a neighborhood is associated with B-CPR delivery and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We assessed whether B-CPR rates and survival vary by neighborhood-level ethnicity. We hypothesized that neighborhoods with a higher proportion of Hispanic residents have lower B-CPR rates and lower survival. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry at US sites. Neighborhoods were classified by census tract based on percentage of Hispanic residents: <25%, 25% to 50%, 51% to 75%, or >75%. We independently modeled the likelihood of receipt of B-CPR and survival by neighborhood-level ethnicity controlling for site and patient-level confounding characteristics. RESULTS:From 2011 to 2015, the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium collected 27 481 US arrest events; after excluding pediatric arrests, emergency medical services-witnessed arrests, or arrests occurring in a healthcare or institutional facility, 18 927 were included. B-CPR was administered in 37% of events. In neighborhoods with <25% Hispanic residents, B-CPR was administered in 39% of events, whereas it was administered in 27% of events in neighborhoods with >75% Hispanic residents. Compared with <25% Hispanic neighborhoods in a multivariable analysis, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods had lower B-CPR rates (51% to 75% Hispanic: odds ratio, 0.79 [CI, 0.65-0.95], P=0.014; >75% Hispanic: odds ratio, 0.72 [CI, 0.55-0.96], P=0.025) and lower survival rates (global P value 0.029; >75% Hispanic: odds ratio, 0.56 [CI, 0.34-0.93], P=0.023). CONCLUSIONS:Individuals with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods were less likely to receive B-CPR and had lower likelihood of survival. These findings suggest a need to understand the underlying disparities in cardiopulmonary resuscitationdelivery and an unmet cardiopulmonary resuscitationtraining need in Hispanic communities.

Project description:AIMS: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). METHODS: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). RESULTS: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. CONCLUSION: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.