A Danish study has concluded that the two techniques lower the
long-term risk of death from any cause, brain damage or nursing home
admission by one third in people who are still alive 30 days after
their cardiac arrest.
Most previous studies have looked at whether people who get CPR or
defibrillation manage to survive or escape serious injury by the
30-day mark.
"This science provides the linkage to show that resuscitation is not
just important in the immediate cardiac arrest phase, but it's an
important factor into whether they go back to their lives intact,"
said Dr. Michael Kurz, associate professor of emergency medicine at
the University of Alabama-Birmingham Medicine, who was not involved
in the study.
"We were surprised to see that, once you select 30-day survivors, so
many were still alive at one year and the majority of these
survivors seemed to have a fairly good outcome," study coauthor Dr.
Kristian Kragholm told Reuters Health in a telephone interview. "If
bystanders intervened by starting chest compression, survivors were
less likely to experience brain damage or be admitted to a nursing
home. And with an AED (automated external defibrillator), the
benefit was even greater."
For the public, it's further evidence "of what you can do when you
witness a cardiac arrest," and why policy makers should be working
harder to both require resuscitation training for the general public
and make more defibrillators available in public places, said
Kragholm, of Aalborg University Hospital in Denmark.
The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, used
national registries to identify 34,459 people who had received some
type of bystander resuscitation when they had cardiac arrest outside
of a hospital. Only 8.3 percent survived for a month.
But with bystander CPR, the odds of subsequent death from any cause
at one year among the 30-day survivors were 30 percent lower, the
likelihood of brain damage or nursing home admission was 38 percent
lower and the rate of all three outcomes combined was 33 percent
lower.
With bystander defibrillation, the death rate was 78 percent lower,
the composite of brain damage or nursing home admission was 55
percent lower and the odds for the combination of all three were
also 55 percent lower. But the number of cases where a defibrillator
was used was relatively small, even though the automated devices are
becoming more common.
Over all, the risk of brain damage or a nursing home admission was
just 3.7 percent if the cardiac arrest was witnessed by emergency
medical service personnel. If bystanders used defibrillation, the
rate was 8.4 percent. If bystanders used CPR alone it was 12.1
percent. The danger was highest - 18.6 percent - when no bystander
resuscitation was done.
[to top of second column] |
"This underpins the importance of the public to identify and respond
to that emergency," Kurz said. "Denmark has a very impressive
bystander CPR rate. That's one of the reasons the numbers in this
article are so good."
During the study, which ran from 2001 through 2012, the rate of
bystander CPR went from 67 percent of the cases to 81 percent, and
the rate of bystander defibrillation jumped from 2 percent to nearly
17 percent.
"Such increases are probably related to the multiple nationwide
initiatives that have been taken in Denmark, including widespread
mandatory and voluntary CPR training; widespread dissemination of
automated external defibrillators; the introduction of health care
professionals at emergency dispatch centers, facilitating
dispatcher-assisted CPR; and the formation and linkage of an
automated external defibrillator registry to the dispatch centers,
enabling health care professionals to guide bystanders to the
nearest automated external defibrillators," Kurz said.
Bystanders themselves can also locate the nearest automated external
defibrillator with the use of a smartphone application.
CPR education became mandatory in schools in 2005 and for people
acquiring a driver's license in 2006, according to Kragholm.
Kurz said that in the United States, defibrillators should be
required in local building codes the way communities require fire
alarms, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2qgNUHP New England Journal of Medicine,
online May 3, 2017.
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|