Search

Objectives: To evaluate whether automated external defibrillator (AED) training and AED availability affected the response of volunteer rescuers and performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in presumed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) during the multicenter Public Access Defibrillation Trial. Methods: The Public Access Defibrillation Trial recruited 1,260 facilities in 24 North American regional sites to participate in a trial addressing survival from OOH-CA when AED training and availability were added to a volunteer-based emergency response team. Volunteers at each facility were trained to perform either CPR alone (CPR) or CPR in conjunction with AED use (CPR+AED) according to randomized assignments. This study reports the frequency of response and initiation of CPR actions (chest compressions and/or ventilations) by volunteers in the CPR and CPR+AED study groups. Results: A total of 314 presumed OOH-CA episodes occurred in CPR facilities, and 308 occurred in CPR+AED facilities. The volunteers were matched well for age, gender, and other features. Overall, ventilations (23.1% vs. 13.1%), chest compressions (24.4% vs. 12.1%), and both actions (19.8% vs. 10.5%; all p < 0.05) were more commonly performed in OOH-CA cases in the CPR+AED group. However, when only OOH-CA cases with volunteers responding were analyzed, the rates of CPR actions were similar. In the subgroup of CPR+AED cases with a responding volunteer, the AED was turned on for only 47% of cases. Volunteers initiated a CPR action more commonly when the AED was turned on (60.7% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.003). Conclusions: In the Public Access Defibrillation Trial, rates of CPR actions for presumed OOH-CA victims were low but similar for CPR and CPR+AED responding volunteer rescuers. Factors associated with volunteer response, CPR action initiation, and AED activation warrant further investigation.

The PAD Trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical study testing whether volunteer, non-medical responders can improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) by using automated external defibrillators (AEDs). These lay volunteers, who have no traditional responsibility to respond to a medical emergency as part of their primary job description, will form part of a comprehensive, integrated community approach to the treatment of OOH-CA. The study is being conducted at 24 field centers in the United States and Canada. Approximately 1000 community units (e.g. apartment or office buildings, gated communities, sports facilities, senior centers, shopping malls, etc.) were randomized to treatment by trained laypersons who will provide either cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone or CPR plus use of an AED, while awaiting arrival of the community's emergency medical services responders. The primary endpoint is the number of OOH-CA victims who survive to hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints include neurological status, health-related quality of life (HRQL), cost, and cost-effectiveness. Data collection will last approximately 15 months and is expected to be completed in September 2003.

Objective: To evaluate the utility of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) in the out-of-hospital treatment of patients with presumed congestive heart failure (CHF). Methods: This was a prospective, sequential, parallel trial in an urban setting served by a single emergency medical services (EMS) system between January 4 and April 15, 1999. A convenience sampling of adults who were transported by rescue units judged to be in CHF by treating emergency medical technicians trained in advanced life support (ALS EMTs) was included. Rescue squads were divided into demographically matched pairs, and one of each was equipped with a BiPAP ventilatory support unit. Bilevel positive airway pressure therapy was added to the existing treatment protocols for eligible study patients. Main outcome measures were out-of-hospital treatment time, oxygen saturation changes, hospitalization length, need for endotracheal intubation, mortality rate, and ease of use of the device by EMS personnel. Results: Sixty-two of 71 enrolled patients completed the study. Out-of-hospital treatment times did not differ between groups (31.2 minutes vs 31.4 minutes; p = 0.931). The difference between pre- and post-treatment oxygen saturation levels was greater for the BiPAP group (13.71%) than the control group (6.69%) (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference between groups in the length of hospital stay [control: 7.63 days, vs BiPAP: 6.33 days, p = 0.48], the intubation rate [control: 7 of 25 (28%) vs BiPAP: 4 of 37 (11%), p = 0.10], or death rate [control: 2 of 24, vs BiPAP: 6 of 37, p = 0.46]. All of the ALS EMTs who used BiPAP thought that it was safe to use, and 97% thought it was easy and appeared to improve patients' dyspnea and respiratory distress. Conclusions: ALS EMTs can be trained to deliver noninvasive ventilation with BiPAP, find it easy to apply, and believe that it helps relieve dyspnea in patients with suspected CHF.

Summary Background Bystander CPR rates remain low. One reason may be that the thought of responding to an emergency is so stressful that it decreases the willingness of laypersons to respond. Purpose The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of stress experienced by lay responders to a medical emergency and to identify barriers that may have impeded their response to the event. Methods Responses from 1243 laypersons responding to an emergency during the Public Access Defibrillation Trial were analyzed in a mixed methods study. Stress related to the event was recorded using a 0 (none) to 5 (severe) scale. Qualitative responses to the question of “What was most difficult?” about the event were analyzed using content analysis. Results Reported stress levels were low overall (mean 1.2, median 1.0). Laypersons responding to an emergency presumed to be a cardiac arrest had higher stress than those involved in other events (median 2.0 versus 1.0). Stress levels were higher in residential than in public settings (mean 1.41, median 1.0 versus mean 1.13, median 1.0). Those who fit a certain profile (females, non-native English speakers) reported statistically higher stress levels than others. A total of 614 qualitative responses were studied and aggregated into four major categories of difficulty: practical issues; characteristics of the victim; interpersonal issues; thoughts and feelings of the lay responder. Most difficulties were in the category of practical issues. Conclusions Among these study volunteer lay responders, low levels of stress were reported. Incorporating descriptions of the difficulties experienced by lay responders in CPR/AED training curricula may make courses more realistic and useful.

Background The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial was a randomized, controlled trial designed to measure survival to hospital discharge following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) in community facilities trained and equipped to provide PAD, compared with community facilities trained to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without any capacity for defibrillation. Objectives To report the implementation of community-based lay responder emergency response programs in 1,260 participating facilities recruited for the PAD Trial in the United States and Canada. Methods This was a descriptive study of the characteristics of participating facilities, volunteers, and automated external defibrillator (AED) placements compiled by the PAD Trial, and a qualitative study of factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of emergency lay responder programs using focus groups of PAD Trial site coordinators. Results The PAD Trial enrolled 1,260 community facilities (14.8% residential), with 20,400 lay volunteers (mean +/- standard deviation = 13.4 +/- 10.7 per facility) trained to respond to OOH-CA. The 598 locations randomized to receive AEDs required 2.7 +/- 1.8 AEDs per facility. Volunteer attrition was high, 36% after two years. Barriers to recruitment and implementation included identification of appropriate "at-risk" facilities, lack of interest or fear of litigation by a facility key decision maker, lack of motivated potential volunteer responders, training and retraining resource requirements, and lack of an existing communication/response infrastructure. Conclusions These data indicate that implementation of community-based lay responder programs is feasible in many types of facilities, although these programs require substantial resources and commitment, and many barriers to implementation of effective PAD programs exist.