The American journal of emergency medicine · 2023
Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator use, and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kim Sang Hun, Park Jeong Ho, Jeong Joo, Ro Young Sun, Hong Ki Jeong, Song Kyoung Jun, Do Shin Sang
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the association between bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with and without automated external defibrillator (AED) use and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Korea.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a nationwide Korean OHCA registry between 2015 and 2019. Patients were categorised into no bystander CPR and bystander CPR with and without AED use groups. The primary outcome was good neurological recovery at discharge. We also analysed the interaction effects of place of arrest, response time, and whether the OHCA was witnessed.
RESULTS: In total, 93,623 patients were included. Among them, 35,486 (37.9%) were in the no bystander CPR group, 56,187 (60.0%) were in the bystander CPR without AED use group, and 1950 (2.1%) were in the bystander CPR with AED use group. Good neurological recovery was demonstrated in 1286 (3.6%), 3877 (6.9%), and 208 (10.7%) patients in the no CPR, bystander CPR without AED use, and bystander CPR with AED use groups, respectively. Compared to the no bystander CPR group, the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) for good neurological recovery was 1.54 (1.45-1.65) and 1.37 (1.15-1.63) in the bystander CPR without and with AED use groups, respectively. The effect of bystander CPR with AED use was more apparent in OHCAs with witnessed arrest and prolonged response time (≥8 min).
CONCLUSION: Bystander CPR was associated with better neurological recovery compared to no bystander CPR; however, the benefits of AED use were not significant. Efforts to disseminate bystander AED availability and ensure proper utilisation are warranted.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a nationwide Korean OHCA registry between 2015 and 2019. Patients were categorised into no bystander CPR and bystander CPR with and without AED use groups. The primary outcome was good neurological recovery at discharge. We also analysed the interaction effects of place of arrest, response time, and whether the OHCA was witnessed.
RESULTS: In total, 93,623 patients were included. Among them, 35,486 (37.9%) were in the no bystander CPR group, 56,187 (60.0%) were in the bystander CPR without AED use group, and 1950 (2.1%) were in the bystander CPR with AED use group. Good neurological recovery was demonstrated in 1286 (3.6%), 3877 (6.9%), and 208 (10.7%) patients in the no CPR, bystander CPR without AED use, and bystander CPR with AED use groups, respectively. Compared to the no bystander CPR group, the adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) for good neurological recovery was 1.54 (1.45-1.65) and 1.37 (1.15-1.63) in the bystander CPR without and with AED use groups, respectively. The effect of bystander CPR with AED use was more apparent in OHCAs with witnessed arrest and prolonged response time (≥8 min).
CONCLUSION: Bystander CPR was associated with better neurological recovery compared to no bystander CPR; however, the benefits of AED use were not significant. Efforts to disseminate bystander AED availability and ensure proper utilisation are warranted.