Outcome of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Beijing

Xian-Yu Shi, Yang Wu, Haibin Li, S. Ma, Dou Li, Ding Gao, H. Cui, Changxiao Yu, Song Yang, Ziren Tang, Fei Shao
{"title":"Outcome of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Beijing","authors":"Xian-Yu Shi, Yang Wu, Haibin Li, S. Ma, Dou Li, Ding Gao, H. Cui, Changxiao Yu, Song Yang, Ziren Tang, Fei Shao","doi":"10.1097/EC9.0000000000000002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Aim: We aimed to investigate the association between bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in Beijing. Methods: This observational study analyzed adult patients with OHCA treated by the Beijing emergency medical service (EMS) from January 2013 to December 2017. Data were collected in a Utstein style with a 1-year follow-up and a primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission, favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, and survival and favorable neurological outcomes of up to 1 year. Results: A total of 5016 patients with OHCA from Beijing's urban area were recorded by EMS, wherein 765 patients (15.25%) underwent bystander CPR. The data were propensity score-matched forage, sex, location, witness, aetiology, initial rhythm, and call to EMS arrival to compare the difference between the occurrence and nonoccurrence of bystander CPR. The survival upon the discharge of patients who experienced bystander CPR was superior to that of patients who did not receive bystander CPR (3.7% vs 1.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Moreover, patients with OHCA resuscitated with bystander CPR achieved better outcomes of ROSC, survival to admission, favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, survival and favorable neurological outcome after 1 year compared with those who were not resuscitated with bystander CPR. Conclusion: Survival and neurological outcome of patients who underwent bystander CPR was better than those who underwent nonbystander CPR in Beijing. However, the rate of bystander CPR was low.","PeriodicalId":72895,"journal":{"name":"Emergency and critical care medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":"64 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency and critical care medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EC9.0000000000000002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Aim: We aimed to investigate the association between bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in Beijing. Methods: This observational study analyzed adult patients with OHCA treated by the Beijing emergency medical service (EMS) from January 2013 to December 2017. Data were collected in a Utstein style with a 1-year follow-up and a primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission, favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, and survival and favorable neurological outcomes of up to 1 year. Results: A total of 5016 patients with OHCA from Beijing's urban area were recorded by EMS, wherein 765 patients (15.25%) underwent bystander CPR. The data were propensity score-matched forage, sex, location, witness, aetiology, initial rhythm, and call to EMS arrival to compare the difference between the occurrence and nonoccurrence of bystander CPR. The survival upon the discharge of patients who experienced bystander CPR was superior to that of patients who did not receive bystander CPR (3.7% vs 1.2%, respectively; P < 0.001). Moreover, patients with OHCA resuscitated with bystander CPR achieved better outcomes of ROSC, survival to admission, favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, survival and favorable neurological outcome after 1 year compared with those who were not resuscitated with bystander CPR. Conclusion: Survival and neurological outcome of patients who underwent bystander CPR was better than those who underwent nonbystander CPR in Beijing. However, the rate of bystander CPR was low.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
北京院外心脏骤停后旁观者心肺复苏的结果
摘要目的:探讨北京市院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)与生存率之间的关系。方法:本观察性研究分析了2013年1月至2017年12月在北京急救中心接受治疗的成人OHCA患者。数据以Utstein方式收集,随访1年,主要结果为出院后的生存率。次要结果是恢复自然循环(ROSC)、入院生存率、出院时良好的神经系统结果以及长达1年的生存率和良好的神经功能结果。结果:北京市区共有5016例OHCA患者接受了EMS记录,其中765例(15.25%)患者接受了旁观者心肺复苏术。数据是倾向评分匹配的饲料、性别、地点、目击者、病因、初始节律和EMS到达电话,以比较旁观者心肺复苏的发生和不发生之间的差异。经过旁观者心肺复苏术的患者出院后的存活率高于未接受旁观者心肺切除术的患者(分别为3.7%和1.2%;P < 0.001)。此外,与未使用旁观者心肺复苏术的患者相比,使用旁观者心复苏术复苏的OHCA患者在ROSC、入院生存率、出院时良好的神经系统结果、1年后的生存率和良好的神经系统结果方面取得了更好的结果。结论:在北京,采用旁观者心肺复苏术的患者的生存率和神经系统结果优于采用非旁观者心肺切除术的患者。然而,旁观者心肺复苏术的发生率很低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical analysis of patients with deep sternal wound infection-induced sepsis: a retrospective cohort study Exploring the effects of coronary artery disease as a preexisting comorbidity on mortality in hospitalized septic patients: a retrospective observation study An unusual anterior mitral leaflet perforation in a patient with no infective endocarditis: a case report Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia in critically ill patients: does bedside laparoscopy offer any real benefit? Congestive heart failure and sepsis a retrospective study of hospitalization outcomes from a rural hospital in Southwest Missouri: Erratum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1