Association between type of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A machine learning study.
Cardiac arrest
Compression only CPR
OHCA
Journal
Resuscitation plus
ISSN: 2666-5204
Titre abrégé: Resusc Plus
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101774410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
30
11
2021
revised:
12
02
2022
accepted:
26
04
2022
entrez:
23
6
2022
pubmed:
24
6
2022
medline:
24
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the event of an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) it is recommended for a sole untrained bystander to perform compression only CPR (CO-CPR). However, it remains unknown if CO-CPR is inferior to standard CPR (S-CPR), including both compressions and ventilation, in terms of survival. One could speculate that due to the current pandemic, bystanders may be more hesitant performing mouth-to-mouth ventilation. The aim of this study is to assess the association between type of bystander CPR and survival in OHCA. This study included all patients with a bystander treated OHCA between year 2015-2019 in ages 18-100 using The Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (SRCR). We compared CO-CPR to S-CPR in terms of 30-day survival using a propensity score approach based on machine learning adjusting for a large number of covariates. A total of 13,481 patients were included (5,293 with S-CPR and 8,188 with CO-CPR). The matched subgroup consisted of 2994 cases in each group.Gradient boosting were the best models with regards to predictive accuracy (for type of bystander CPR) and covariate balance. The difference between S-CPR and CO-CPR in all 30 models computed on covariate adjustment and 1-to-1 matching were non-significant. In the 30 weighted models, three comparisons (S-CPR vs. CO-CPR) were significant in terms of improved survival; odds ratio for men was 1.21 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.43; Average treatment effect (ATE)); for patients ≥73 years 1.57 (99% CI 1.17-2.12) for Average treatment effect on treated (ATT) and 1.63 (99% CI 1.18-2.25) for ATE. Remaining 27 models showed no differences. No significances remain after adjustment for multiple testing. We found no significant differences between S-CPR and CO-CPR in terms of survival, supporting current recommendations for untrained bystanders regarding CO-CPR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35734307
doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100245
pii: S2666-5204(22)00045-5
pmc: PMC9207566
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100245Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Références
Circulation. 2019 Jun 4;139(23):2610-2612
pubmed: 31157995
Stat Methods Med Res. 2020 Mar;29(3):641-643
pubmed: 32186265
Circulation. 2019 Apr 1;:
pubmed: 30929457
Stat Med. 1998 Oct 15;17(19):2265-81
pubmed: 9802183
J Intern Med. 2013 Jun;273(6):572-83
pubmed: 23480824
JAMA. 2015 Jul 21;314(3):247-54
pubmed: 26197185
Circulation. 2015 Sep 29;132(13):1286-300
pubmed: 25391522
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 27;3:CD010134
pubmed: 28349529
Eur Heart J. 2015 Apr 7;36(14):863-71
pubmed: 25205528
BMC Bioinformatics. 2008 Jul 11;9:307
pubmed: 18620558
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 14;40(3):309-318
pubmed: 30380021
Lancet. 2010 Nov 6;376(9752):1552-7
pubmed: 20951422
BMJ. 2009 Jun 29;338:b2393
pubmed: 19564179