Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1995 Jun;25(6):780-4.
doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70207-5.

Bystander CPR, ventricular fibrillation, and survival in witnessed, unmonitored out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Affiliations

Bystander CPR, ventricular fibrillation, and survival in witnessed, unmonitored out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

R A Swor et al. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Jun.

Abstract

Study objective: To assess whether bystander CPR (BCPR) on collapse affects initial rhythm and outcome in patients with witnessed, unmonitored out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Design: Prospective cohort study. Student's t test, the chi 2 test, and logistic regression were used for analysis.

Setting: Suburban emergency medical service (EMS) system.

Participants: Patients 19 years or older with witnessed OHCA of presumed cardiac origin who experienced cardiac arrest before EMS arrival between July 1989 and July 1993.

Results: Of 722 patients who met the entry criteria, 153 received BCPR. Patients who received BCPR were younger than those who did not: 62.5 +/- 15.4 years versus 66.8 +/- 15.1 years (P < .01). We found no differences in basic or advanced life support response intervals or in frequency of AED use. More patients initially had ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the BCPR group: 80.9% versus 61.4% (P < .01). The interval to definitive care for ventricular tachycardia (VT)/VF was longer for the BCPR group (8.59 +/- 5.3 versus 7.45 +/- 4.7 minutes; P < .05). The percentage of patients discharged alive who were initially in VT/VF was higher in the BCPR group: 18.3% versus 8.4% (P < .001). In a multivariate model, BCPR is a significant predictor for VT/VF and live discharge with adjusted ORs of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.4) and 2.4 (95% CI, 1.5 to 4.0), respectively. For those patients in VT/VF, BCPR predicted live discharge from hospital with an adjusted OR of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.6).

Conclusion: Patients who receive BCPR are more often found in VT/VF and have an increased rate of live discharge, with controls for age and response and definitive care intervals. For VT/VF patients, BCPR is associated with an increased rate of live discharge.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources