Does witness type affect the chance of receiving bystander CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest?

OBJECTIVES

The relationship between the bystander witness type and receipt of bystander CPR (BCPR) is not well understood. Herein we compared BCPR administration between family and non-family witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

BACKGROUND

In many communities, interventions in the past decade have contributed to an increased receipt of BCPR, for example in Singapore from 15% to 60%. However, BCPR rates have plateaued despite sustained and ongoing community-based interventions, which may be related to gaps in education or training for various witness types. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between witness type and BCPR administration.

METHODS

Singapore data from 2010-2020 was extracted from the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study (PAROS) network registry (n = 25,024). All adult, layperson witnessed, non-traumatic OHCAs were included in this study.

RESULTS

Of 10,016 eligible OHCA cases, 6,895 were family witnessed and 3,121 were non-family witnessed. After adjustment for potential confounders, BCPR administration was less likely for non-family witnessed OHCA (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75, 0.93). After location stratification, non-family witnessed OHCAs were less likely to receive BCPR in residential settings (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66, 0.85). In non-residential settings, there was no statistically significant association between witness type and BCPR administration (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.88, 1.39). Details regarding witness type and bystander CPR were limited.

CONCLUSION

This study found differences in BCPR administration between family and non-family witnessed OHCA cases. Elucidation of witness characteristics may be useful to determine populations that would benefit most from CPR education and training.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Marcus EH Ong reports grants from the Laerdal Foundation, Laerdal Medical, and Ramsey Social Justice Foundation for funding of the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study; an advisory relationship with Global Healthcare SG, a commercial entity that manufactures cooling devices. Marcus EH Ong has a licensing agreement with ZOLL Medical Corporation and patent filed (Application no: 13/047,348) for a “Method of predicting acute cardiopulmonary events and survivability of a patient”. He is also the co-founder and scientific advisor of TIIM Healthcare, a commercial entity which develops real-time prediction and risk stratification solutions for triage. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.]