The wide variation in the survival outcomes amongst the seven countries in our study may be due to the differences in the delivery of pre-hospital interventions and bystander CPR rates.
Known heart disease independently predicted poorer post-OHCA survival. This study may provide information to guide future prospective studies specifically looking at family education for patients with heart disease and the effect on OHCA outcomes.
Background. Survival outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Asia are poor (2-11%). Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates are relatively low in Asia. Dispatcher-assisted CPR (DA-CPR) has recently emerged as a potentially cost-effective intervention to increase bystander CPR and survival from OHCA. The Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study (PAROS), an Asia-Pacific cardiac arrest registry, was set up in 2009, with the aim of understanding OHCA as a disease in Asia and improving OHCA survival. The network has adopted DA-CPR as part of its strategy to improve OHCA survival. Objective. This article aims to describe the conceptualization, study design, potential benefits, and difficulties for implementation of DA-CPR trial in the Asia-Pacific. Methods. Two levels of intervention, basic and comprehensive, will be offered to PAROS participating sites. The basic level consists of implementation of a DA-CPR protocol and training program, while the comprehensive level consists of implementation of the basic level, with the addition of a dispatch quality measurement tool, quality improvement program, and community education program. Sites that are not able to implement the package will contribute control data. The primary outcome of the study is survival to hospital discharge or survival to 30 days post cardiac arrest. DA-CPR and bystander CPR are secondary outcomes. Conclusion. Implementation of DA-CPR requires concerted efforts by EMS leaders and supervisors, dispatchers, hospital stakeholders, policy makers, and the general public. The DA-CPR trial implemented by the PAROS sites, if successful, can serve as a model for other countries considering such an intervention in their EMS systems.
IntroductionEndotracheal intubation (ETI) is currently considered superior to supraglottic airway devices (SGA) for survival and other outcomes among adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We aimed to determine if the research supports this conclusion by conducting a systematic review.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and CINAHL databases for studies published between January 1, 1980, and 30 April 30, 2013, which compared pre-hospital use of ETI with SGA for outcomes of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC); survival to hospital admission; survival to hospital discharge; and favorable neurological or functional status. We selected studies using pre-specified criteria. Included studies were independently screened for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We did not pool results because of study variability. Study outcomes were extracted and results presented as summed odds ratios with 95% CI.ResultsWe identified five eligible studies: one quasi-randomized controlled trial and four cohort studies, involving 303,348 patients in total. Only three of the five studies reported a higher proportion of ROSC with ETI versus SGA with no difference reported in the remaining two. None found significant differences between ETI and SGA for survival to hospital admission or discharge. One study reported better functional status at discharge for ETI versus SGA. Two studies reported no significant difference for favorable neurological status between ETI and SGA.ConclusionCurrent evidence does not conclusively support the superiority of ETI over SGA for multiple outcomes among adults with OHCA.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.