BackgroundCurrent guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) emphasise that emergency medical service (EMS) dispatchers should identify sudden cardiac arrest (CA) with abnormal breathing and assist lay rescuers performing CPR. However, lay rescuers description of abnormal breathing may be inconsistent, and it is unclear how EMS dispatchers provide instruction for CPR based on the breathing status of the CA victims described by laypersons.Methods and resultsTo investigate the incidence of abnormal breathing and the association between the EMS dispatcher-assisted CPR instruction and layperson CPR, we retrospectively analysed 283 witnessed CA cases whose information regarding breathing status of CA victims was available from population-based prospective cohort data. In 169 cases (59.7%), laypersons described that the CA victims were breathing in various ways, and that the victims were ‘not breathing’ in 114 cases (40.3%). Victims described as breathing in various ways were provided EMS dispatch-instruction for CPR less frequently than victims described as ‘not breathing’ (27.8% (47/169) vs 84.2% (96/114); p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression showed that EMS dispatch-instruction for CPR was associated significantly with layperson CPR (adjusted OR, 11.0; 95% CI, 5.72 to 21.2).ConclusionsThis population-based study indicates that 60% of CA victims showed agonal respiration, which was described as breathing in various ways at the time of EMS call. Although EMS dispatch-instruction was associated significantly with an increase in layperson CPR, abnormal breathing was associated with a much lower rate of CPR instruction and, in turn, was related to a much lower rate of bystander CPR.
BackgroundWe modified the dispatch protocol for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) using results of a retrospective analysis that identified descriptions by laypersons of possible patterns of agonal respiration. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this modified protocol by comparing the frequency of dispatch instructions for CPR and bystander CPR before and after protocol implementation. We also identified descriptions of abnormal breathing patterns among ‘Not in cardiac arrest (CA)’ unresponsive cases.MethodsThis study was conducted prospectively using the population-based registry of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). For 8 months we implemented this modified protocol in cooperation with 4 fire departments that cover regions with a total population of 840,000.ResultsThere were 478 and 427 OHCAs before and after implementation, respectively. Among them, 69 and 71 layperson-witnessed OHCAs for pre- and post-implementation, respectively, were analyzed. Dispatchers provided CPR instructions more frequently after protocol implementation than before (55/71 [77.5 %] vs. 41/69 [59.4 %], p < 0.05). Based on breathing patterns described by emergency callers, dispatchers assessed 143 ‘Not in CA’ unresponsive cases and provided CPR instruction for 45 cases. Sensitivity and specificity of this protocol was 93 % and 50 %, respectively.ConclusionsThis modified protocol based on abnormal breathing described by laypersons significantly increased CPR instructions. Considering high sensitivity and low specificity for abnormal breathing to identify CA and the low risk of chest compression for ‘Not in CA’ cases, our study suggested that dispatchers can provide CPR instruction assertively and safely for those unresponsive individuals with various abnormal breathing patterns.
In published reports of naphazoline ingestion, clinical effects are hypertension, bradycardia, pallor, diaphoresis, and respiratory distress. We report three cases of acute pulmonary edema after the intentional ingestion of naphazoline-containing antiseptic first aid liquid. These cases presented with altered mental status, hypertension, bradycardia, and diaphoresis. Chest x-ray on admission revealed acute pulmonary edema. Two cases required mechanical ventilation. All of these clinical effects resolved within 24 hours and the patients were discharged with no sequelae. Since naphazoline stimulates the peripheral alpha-2 adrenergic receptor, we speculate that intense vasoconstriction may have elevated cardiac afterload and left atrial-ventricular blood volume and caused acute pulmonary edema.
BackgroundTo investigate variations in emergency medical service (EMS) pre‐arrival cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), including both bystander CPR without dispatch assistance and dispatch‐assisted CPR (DACPR).MethodsWe carried out an observational study by implementing EMS pre‐arrival CPR reports in three fire agencies. We included adult, non‐traumatic, and non‐EMS witnessed out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrests. This reporting system comprised the dispatch instruction process and bystander CPR quality based on evaluations by EMS crews who arrived on the scene. Bystander CPR was categorized as “ongoing CPR” if the bystander was performing CPR when the EMS reached the patient's side and “good‐quality CPR” if the CPR was performed proficiently. We compared the frequencies of ongoing and good‐quality CPR in the bystander CPR already started without dispatch assistance (CPR in progress) group and DACPR group.ResultsOf 688 out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrests, CPR was already started in 150 cases (CPR in progress group). Dispatcher CPR instruction was provided in 368 cases. Among these, callers started chest compressions in 162 cases (DACPR group). Ongoing CPR was performed in 220 cases and was more frequent in the DACPR group (128/162 [79.0%] versus 92/150 [61.3%], P < 0.001). Good‐quality CPR was more frequent in the CPR in progress group, but the difference was not statistically significant (36/92 [39.1%] versus 42/128 [29.0%], P = 0.888).ConclusionsOngoing CPR and good‐quality CPR were not frequent in EMS pre‐arrival CPR. Detailed analysis of dispatch instructions and bystander CPR can contribute to improvement in EMS pre‐arrival CPR.
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.