• Circulation · Dec 2016

    Comparative Study

    Conventional Versus Compression-Only Versus No-Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Pediatric Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

    • Tatsuma Fukuda, Naoko Ohashi-Fukuda, Hiroaki Kobayashi, Masataka Gunshin, Toshiki Sera, Yutaka Kondo, and Naoki Yahagi.
    • From Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Japan (T.F., N.O-F., H.K., N.Y); Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (H.K.); Department of Disaster Medical Management, University of Tokyo Hospital, Japan (M.G.); The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD (M.G.); Department of Acute Critical Care and Disaster Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan (T.S.); Department of Emergency Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan (Y.K.); and Division of Acute Care Surgery, Trauma, and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (Y.K.). tatsumafukuda-jpn@umin.ac.jp.
    • Circulation. 2016 Dec 20; 134 (25): 2060-2070.

    BackgroundConventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (chest compression and rescue breathing) has been recommended for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) because of the asphyxial nature of the majority of pediatric cardiac arrest events. However, the clinical effectiveness of additional rescue breathing (conventional CPR) compared with compression-only CPR in children is uncertain.MethodsThis nationwide population-based study of pediatric OHCA patients was based on data from the All-Japan Utstein Registry. We included all pediatric patients who experienced OHCA in Japan from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012. The primary outcome was a favorable neurological state 1 month after OHCA defined as a Glasgow-Pittsburgh Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 to 2 (corresponding to a Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category score of 1-3). Outcomes were compared with logistic regression with uni- and multivariable modeling in the overall cohort and for a propensity-matched subset of patients.ResultsA total of 2157 patients were included; 417 received conventional CPR, 733 received compression-only CPR, and 1007 did not receive any bystander CPR. Among these patients, 213 (9.9%) survived with a favorable neurological status 1 month after OHCA, including 108/417 (25.9%) for conventional, 68/733 (9.3%) for compression-only, and 37/1007 (3.7%) for no-bystander CPR. In unadjusted analyses, conventional CPR was superior to compression-only CPR in neurologically favorable survival (odds ratio [OR] 3.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.45-4.76; P<0.0001), with a trend favoring conventional CPR that was no longer statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (ORadjusted 1.52, 95% CI 0.93-2.49), and with further attenuation of the difference in a propensity-matched subset (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81-1.77). Both conventional and compression-only CPR were associated with higher odds for neurologically favorable survival compared with no-bystander CPR (ORadjusted 5.01, 95% CI 2.98-8.57, and ORadjusted 3.29, 95% CI 1.93-5.71), respectively.ConclusionsIn this population-based study of pediatric OHCA in Japan, both conventional and compression-only CPR were associated with superior outcomes compared with no-bystander CPR. Unadjusted outcomes with conventional CPR were superior to compression-only CPR, with the magnitude of difference attenuated and no longer statistically significant after statistical adjustments. These findings support randomized clinical trials comparing conventional versus compression-only CPR in children, with conventional CPR preferred until such controlled comparative data are available, and either method preferred over no-bystander CPR.© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.