Abstract Sat1303: Factors Associated With Police Officers’ Willingness to Be Dispatched for CPR and AED Use: A Cross-Sectional Study in New Taipei City

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is recognized as a serious public health problem, accounting for 250 000 to 300 000 deaths per year; it is now the third-leading cause of death behind cancer and nonsudden cardiovascular deaths.1,2 Immediate, well-performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and early defibrillation are the only out-of-hospital interventions that improve outcomes.3 The chain of survival relies on lay responders and emergency medical services (EMS) to initiate the potentially life-saving procedures of CPR and defibrillation. Articles see pp 510 and 518 In 1994, the American Heart Association (AHA) convened the first conference on public access defibrillation (PAD) to introduce the strategy of placing easy-to-use defibrillators in public places to decrease the death rate from SCA.4 Specific recommendations encouraged the stakeholders (the AHA, the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, industry, and communities) to facilitate PAD by developing user-friendly, less-expensive automated external defibrillators (AEDs); testing the concept within large clinical trials; and organizing communities to promote and support effective PAD programs. Widespread CPR and AED training of the public was emphasized. In the ensuing 15 years, many of these recommendations have been heeded, and PAD programs are now commonplace. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored PAD trial demonstrated that survival doubled when events occurred in communities equipped and trained with CPR and AEDs compared with CPR alone.5 Within the Resuscitations Outcomes Consortium (ROC), out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims had a markedly increased chance of survival if the first shock was delivered by a bystander using an AED rather than by EMS.6 PAD programs in airports, airlines, and casinos have also validated the effectiveness of the concept. Out-of hospital cardiac arrest is treatable, and outcomes can be improved with currently available approaches. Multiple locations have been recognized as having a higher incidence of cardiac arrest …

Cardiac arrest is a common and treatable cause of death and disability. Each year ≈424 000 people experience emergency medical services (EMS)-assessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the United States.1 The actual burden of OHCA is likely significantly higher because a substantial number go unassessed. In a prospective analysis of deaths in a US county, 5.6% of annual mortality was attributable to cardiac arrest.2 Many patients who suffer OHCA do not receive prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Among those who receive CPR, a large number do not survive because of an inability to restore spontaneous circulation, or anoxic cerebral injury even after restoration of circulation. Nevertheless, when timely interventions are provided, a small proportion of patients (10.4% of all EMS-treated OHCA) recover to resume normal lives. The key therapeutic interventions that make the difference between life and death, metaphorically characterized as the 5 links in a chain of survival by the American Heart Association, include: (1) immediate recognition of cardiac arrest and activation of the EMS, (2) early CPR with emphasis on chest compression, (3) rapid defibrillation, (4) effective advanced life support, and (5) integrated postcardiac arrest care.3 Resuscitation science has undergone major advances since the origins of modern CPR >50 years ago.4 The field continues to be dynamic with emergence of new therapies such as therapeutic hypothermia5 and improvements in systems of care. However, many questions remain on issues such as optimum compression rate, efficacy of chest compression only CPR (CCCPR), dispatcher-assisted CPR, and benefits of postresuscitation measures such as hypothermia. A critical challenge also lies in the translation of resuscitation science into practice. To improve outcomes, each of the links in the chain of survival needs to be executed promptly and effectively. There remain several lacunae, which need to be overcome to develop an …

As with other Parts of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC), Part 5 is based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2015 international evidence review process. ILCOR Basic Life Support (BLS) Task Force members identified and prioritized topics and questions with the newest or most controversial evidence, or those that were thought to be most important for resuscitation. This 2015 Guidelines Update is based on the systematic reviews and recommendations of the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations , “Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation.”1,2 In the online version of this document, live links are provided so the reader can connect directly to the systematic reviews on the ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) website. These links are indicated by a combination of letters and numbers (eg, BLS 740). We encourage readers to use the links and review the evidence and appendix. As with all AHA Guidelines, each 2015 recommendation is labeled with a Class of Recommendation (COR) and a Level of Evidence (LOE). The 2015 Guidelines Update uses the newest AHA COR and LOE classification system, which contains modifications of the Class III recommendation and introduces LOE B-R (randomized studies) and B-NR (nonrandomized studies) as well as LOE C-LD (based on limited data) and LOE C-EO (consensus of expert opinion). The AHA process for identification and management of potential conflicts of interest was used, and potential conflicts for writing group members are listed at the end of each Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update. For additional information about the systematic review process or management of potential conflicts of interest, see “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest” in this …

During the past 20 years, morbidity and mortality rates for nearly all types of cardiovascular disease have declined. Progress in these areas is in stark contrast to that for sudden cardiac death, which continues unabated at a rate of approximately 1000 times per day in the United States, with little decline in incidence or improved outcome. Clearly, the problem of sudden cardiac death is best approached through prevention, but horizons in that area seem no more promising and in some respects less promising and substantially more costly than 2 decades ago. The means necessary for successful resuscitation of a patient in cardiac arrest were known by the early 1960s. Externally performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) could maintain an “oxygen plateau” and delay permanent brain damage long enough to allow external defibrillation using direct current (DC). The possibility of long-term survival was increasingly recognized, as early anecdotal experiences accumulated into published series.1 2 3 Given the hindsight of 3 decades, the obstacles to be overcome before significant progress could be made in out-of-hospital resuscitation were formidable. First, cardiac arrest was perceived as an event that typically occurred in the hospital. In-hospital cardiac arrests are now recognized to represent only a small proportion of sudden deaths based in the community. Second, the CPR technique was known to only a limited number of hospital-based physicians. CPR is no longer restricted to hospitals or physicians; it is routinely taught to the lay public. Third, only line-powered, bulky, and awkward defibrillators were available. The first out-of-hospital defibrillation device weighed 110 lb. Contemporary external defibrillators are available that weigh less than 10 lb. The present report details progress made in achieving the goal of facilitating out-of-hospital resuscitation and specifies those areas in which further headway is needed. This effort began in 1990 with an American Heart …

Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator use, and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Eligibility and Disqualification Recommendations for Competitive Athletes With Cardiovascular Abnormalities: Task Force 12: Emergency Action Plans, Resuscitation, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, and Automated External Defibrillators: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Sudden cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death are less common in children and adolescents than in the adult population. The outcomes from sudden cardiac arrest are generally quite poor in all ages and some data suggest that they are worse in the child and adolescent age group. In addition, the incidence of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) use is generally quite low although it is somewhat variable across communities. This review has been written in order to review the data for pediatric bystander CPR and AED use as it relates to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival. The purpose of this article is also to review endeavors at CPR--AED education in the context of improving both community bystander CPR/AED interventions and OHCA survival. Finally, this review will attempt to suggest some potential educational interventions in order to increase both bystander CPR-AED use and OHCA survival in local communities. Findings from several recent studies suggest that the incidence of bystander CPR--AED intervention is relatively low and that OHCA survival is also quite low in most communities. Several studies also suggest that community educational efforts can increase bystander CPR--AED interventions. The increase in OHCA survival may be attributed to the community educational efforts, yet that increase in survival is relatively small. A prospective high-school study has shown that in this very specific environment, a high incidence of CPR--AED use can be achieved, and that as a result the OHCA survival can be relatively high. It would be beneficial to attempt to ensure that all schools have a CPR--AED program along with a group of individuals trained to do CPR and use an AED. Not only should all schools have a cardiac emergency response plan (CERP) but all schools should have CPR--AED programs and all students should learn CPR and AED use prior to graduation. This strategy will ensure that we will have a community of individuals who would perform CPR and use an AED in the community and that in so doing we could increase the incidence of bystander CPR/AED use and increase the OHCA survival rate.

Introduction: The incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in school is approximately 2.1 for 100,000 per year. Although rare, it is a devastating event for the local community. Schools with public access to automated external defibrillators (AED) and an emergency response plan have demonstrated increased survival rates of up to 70% for students who suffer cardiac arrest. Previous studies identified numerous barriers to successful cardiac resuscitation in public school systems. The main objectives of this study were to identify those barriers in the Quebec region elementary school system and to assess the impacts of an AED focused training session. Methods: A previously validated survey focused on the potential barriers to successful defibrillation in OHCA and on demographic variables was sent to 139 elementary schools. Later, 92 employees within three elementary schools who responded to the survey were evaluated before and after receiving training on the use of AED in a mock cardiac arrest scenario. The primary outcome was the time to first shock and the secondary outcomes included correct AED pad placement and safety of the procedure. Results: Survey response rate was 53%, which is comparable to previous studies assaying barriers to cardiac resuscitation in public school systems. 95% of school respondents reported the presence of an AED on the school premises but 46% stated that no formal AED training course was provided to employees. Out of the four schools who reported a previous OHCA, only one had access to an AED at the time of the event. Following focused AED training, 92% of school workers successfully completed a defibrillation sequence in a mock scenario, from 53% before (p < 0.001, McNemar test). The time to first shock went from 66 seconds (95% CI 63-70) to 47 seconds (95% CI 45-49; -29%, p < 0.001). Proper pad placement was the most problematic step for participants and personnel who reported previous training had better performance (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.33-7.42, p = 0.009). Conclusion: Most elementary schools in the Quebec region have access to AEDs. However, inadequate AED training represents a significant barrier to successful defibrillation in the event of an OHCA. Our results showed that a simple focused AED training could improve the performance of school workers and optimize the chain of survival.

Children can save lives

Early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation with Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) by the public at an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) increases patient survival, but AEDs are infrequently used. Using drones to deliver AEDs may be one way to increase uptake, but there is limited understanding about what members of the public think about this. The aim of the study was to explore public attitudes towards drone AED delivery for OHCA. We conducted 14 remote, semi-structured interviews with real-life OHCA bystanders. Participants were recruited via social media, a UK cardiac arrest survivor charity and the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust. We analysed data using the Theoretical Domains Framework and mapped findings to the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B) to identify perceived barriers and facilitators to the retrieval and use of drone-delivered AEDs. We used The Behaviour Change Wheel to identify potential interventions to optimise use of drone-delivered AEDs. Participants experienced varying levels of physical and social opportunities in relation to (un)available AEDs and (in)appropriate support from the call-handler, affecting the likelihood of them performing CPR and/or using an AED effectively. Most participants were unsure about how to use an AED, and none knew how a drone-delivered AED system would work in practice. Many participants questioned whether they would possess sufficient capability and motivation to retrieve and/or operate a drone-delivered AED during a time-critical emergency. There were five key themes for potential interventions: incorporating information about drone-delivered AED use into pre-existing training programmes and materials; ensuring drone use complies with specific regulatory and/or legislative requirements; making the drone-delivered AED easy to identify and access; optimising call-handler scripts to incorporate drone-delivered AED use; providing social support via a robust co-responder model to complement drone-delivered AED use. Participants accepted drone-delivered AEDs for OHCA, but were unsure if it would be effective. They identified several issues that we addressed through the development of a comprehensive intervention framework. A comprehensive call-handler script that incorporates drone-delivered AED use and support for bystanders was the most salient potential intervention for future testing by relevant stakeholders.

Background Despite regional variation in survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), few studies have investigated urban-rural differences in the provision of care and outcomes after OHCA. To better understand the role of pre-hospital care across the urban-rural spectrum, we compared the effects of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) use on survival after OHCA between geographical settings. Methods This retrospective study (2013–2019) used all adult, non-traumatic, and treated OHCAs registered in the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival. The urban/rural status of arrest locations were classified at the census tract level as urban, suburban, large rural, small town, or rural, using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification system (Figure). Bystander interventions were grouped into three categories, including no bystander intervention, bystander CPR alone, and bystander AED use (with CPR). The primary outcome of interest was survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to assess the association between bystander interventions and survival with good neurological outcome by urban/rural status, adjusting for relevant covariates. Results A total of 325,281 patients were included. Bystander CPR alone occurred most often in rural areas (50.8%), and least often in urban areas (35.4%). Bystander AED use varied by urban/rural status (1.7%-2.9%), with large rural (2.9%) and rural areas (2.4%) reporting the highest rates. Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome differed for urban (8.1%), suburban (7.7%), large rural (9.1%), small town (7.1%), and rural areas (6.1%). In all areas, patients who received bystander AED use or bystander CPR alone were more likely to achieve survival with good neurological outcome than patients who received no bystander intervention. The effect of bystander AED use on survival was stronger than bystander CPR alone in urban, suburban, and rural areas (no overlap of confidence bands), whereas no significant differences between these two bystander intervention groups were observed in large rural areas or small towns (overlap of confidence bands) (Table). Conclusions Bystander CPR and AED use are critical components of the response to OHCA across the urban-rural spectrum. The relative impact of bystander interventions on survival varied based on the geographical location of arrests, despite adjusting for numerous potential confounding variables, such as response time. It is possible that unmeasured factors, such as time from collapse to bystander intervention, patient factors, AED accessibility, and CPR quality are contributing to these observed differences. Future research is needed to better understand the response to OHCA across the urban-rural spectrum, which may inform policies for community-specific emergency protocols and planning. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Use of automated external defibrillators in patients with traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Introduction: Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are an important link in the chain of survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). While the use of AEDs are clearly beneficial for OHCA in adults, there are few data on the overall use and outcomes of public AED use in children. Hypothesis: AED use is uncommon in children and associated with neurologically favorable survival. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival database. Inclusion criteria were age ≤ 18 years of age, public arrests, and non-traumatic OHCA from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017. Neurologically favorable survival was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category Scale of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge. Results: Of 971 public pediatric OHCA (66% male, 32% white), AEDs were used by bystanders in 117 (10.3%). AEDs were used among 2.3% of children aged ≤ 1 year (infants), 8.3% of 2-5 year-olds, 12.4% of 6-11 year-olds, and 18.2% of 12-18 year-olds (p<0.001). AED use was similar among white (11.1%), black (9.1%), and Hispanic children (8.1%) (p=0.84). AED use was more common with the provision of bystander CPR (19.1%) vs no bystander CPR (0.9%), witnessed arrests (16.0%) vs unwitnessed arrests (4.7%), and arrests with a shockable rhythm (23.6%) vs a nonshockable rhythm (6.3%) (p<0.001 for all). Overall, adjusted neurologically favorable survival was 29.1% (95% CI 22.7%, 35.5%) when a bystander used an AED compared to 23.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.1%, 26.3%) for no bystander AED use (p=0.11). There was a significant interaction with age and race/ethnicity. AEDs were associated with neurologically favorable survival among children aged 12-18 years (p=0.04) but not associated with neurologically favorable survival in children ≤ 1 year (p=0.43), 1-5 years (p=0.16) or 6-11 years (0.41). AEDs were also associated with neurologically favorable survival in white children (p=0.01) but not with black (p=0.97) or Hispanic children (p=0.06). Conclusions: AED use is uncommon in children suffering OHCA but is associated with improved neurologically favorable survival. The benefit of AEDs was evident mostly for adolescents and white children. Further study is needed to understand these disparities in AED use and outcomes after AED use.

Walking time to nearest public automated external defibrillator for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a major U.S. city

ObjectiveSurvival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) often depends on the effective and immediate use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Given that there have been few studies about AED use in China, the purpose of this study is to investigate the knowledge and attitudes regarding AED use among the Chinese public, then provide an effective suggestion for AED education strategies and legislation.MethodThe online survey was conducted among Chinese participants of the First Aid eLearning courses in June 2020.ResultA total of 2565 (95.00%) surveys were completed, only 23.46% of respondents with non-medical related respondents reported having attended previous AED training courses. Regarding the basic knowledge of AEDs, few respondents (12.28%, n = 315) could answer all four questions correctly. 95.67% (n = 2454) were willing to learn AED use. Even if without the precondition of being skilled in AEDs, the female was more likely to rescue OHCA patients than the male (p = 0.003). Almost all respondents (96.65%) showed a strong willingness to rescue OHCA patients with training in using AEDs. The top four barriers to rescuing OHCA patients were lack of practical performing ability (60.47%), fear of hurting patients (59.30%), inadequate knowledge of resuscitation techniques (44.19%), and worry about taking legal responsibility (26.74%).ConclusionOur study reflects a deficiency of AED knowledge among the general public in China. However, positive attitudes towards rescuing OHCA patients and learning AED use were observed, which indicates that measures need to be taken to disseminate knowledge and use of AEDs.