Chest-compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio era

48Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: The compression-to-ventilation ratio for basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was changed from 15:2 to 30:2, but there are few human studies comparing chest-compression-only CPR with standard CPR. Methods and Results: From the All-Japan Utstein Registry in the 30:2 CPR era, 173,565 adult cardiac arrests witnessed by bystanders were included. On arrival at the scene, emergency medical services responders assessed the status of dispatcher-assisted CPR instruction and bystander CPR technique (chest compression with or without rescue breathing). The primary endpoint was favorable neurological outcome 30 days after cardiac arrest. The prevalence of dispatcher-assisted CPR instruction increased year by year, contributing to an overall increase of chest-compression-only bystander CPR from 20.6% to 35.0%. Among 78,150 patients receiving bystander CPR, favorable neurological outcome did not differ between dispatcher-assisted and -unassisted CPR (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.08). Chest-compression-only CPR resulted in better favorable neurological outcome than standard CPR in the whole cohort (adjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI: 1.00-1.18) and in the subgroup with cardiac etiology (adjusted OR, 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.22). The addition of rescue breathing provided no neurological benefit in the non-cardiac etiology subgroup. Conclusions: In the 30:2 CPR era, dispatcher-assisted CPR instruction contributed to an increase of chest-compression- only bystander CPR, supporting the use of chest-compression-only CPR for bystander-witnessed out-ofhospital cardiac arrest in all adults.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nagao, K. (2013). Chest-compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio era. Circulation Journal, 77(11), 2742–2750. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-13-0457

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