Comparison of Continuous Versus Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR in a Rural Community

  • Thomas G
  • Prescott J
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patientswith out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have interruption ofmanual chest compressions for airway management and breathingwhen performed by medical personnel trained by Advanced CardiacLife Support (ACLS) standards. This interruption likely reducesblood flow and possibly survival. Traditional CPR (30:2 compressionsto ventilations) was compared with continuous chest compressions,CCC (also termed Cardiocerebral Resuscitation, CCR) in a ruralcommunity. Methods. A retrospective cohort analysis of three years of traditionalCPR (June 2008 - May 2011) for OHCA was compared tothree years of using CCC protocols (June 2011 - May 2014). Primaryoutcomes were survival at one and six months. Results. There were 58 0HCA patients in the six year study period(June 2008 - May 2014). Forty (69%) received CPR and 18 (31%)received CCC. Two (5%) survived at least one month with CPR andeight (44%) survived at least one month with CCC (p = 0.0007).After six months, 0/40 (0%) who received CPR had survived and6/18 (33%) who received CCC survived (p = 0.0018). For the patientfound in ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia (a shockable rhythm),0/13 (0.0%) survived one month after CPR and 7/9 (78%) survivedwith CCC (p < 0.01). After six months 0/13 (0.0%) survived withCPR and 6/9 (67%) survived with CCC (p < 0.05). Conclusions. For patients in a rural environment with OHCA, CCChad a more favorable outcome than traditional CPR. For the patientfound in ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia, there wasa profound survival benefit of CCC over CPR.Kans J Med 2018;11(4):110-113.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thomas, G. M., & Prescott, J. T. (2018). Comparison of Continuous Versus Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR in a Rural Community. Kansas Journal of Medicine, 11(4), 110–113. https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.v11i4.8708

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free