Early defibrillation plays a key role in improving survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests due to ventricular fibrillation (ventricular-fibrillation cardiac arrests), and the use of publicly accessible automated external defibrillators (AEDs) can help to reduce the time to defibrillation for such patients. However, the effect of dissemination of public-access AEDs for ventricular-fibrillation cardiac arrest at the population level has not been extensively investigated.

Background—: The best cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) technique for survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) has been intensively discussed in the recent few years. However, most analyses focused on comparison at the individual level. How well the dissemination of bystander-initiated chest compression–only CPR (CCCPR) increases survival after OHCAs at the population level remains unclear. We therefore evaluated the impact of nationwide dissemination of bystander-initiated CCCPR on survival after OHCA. Methods and Results—: A nationwide, prospective, population-based, observational study covering the whole population of Japan and involving consecutive OHCA patients with resuscitation attempts was conducted from January 2005 through December 2012. The main outcome measure was 1-month survival with favorable neurological outcome. The incidence of survival with favorable neurological outcome attributed to types of bystander CPR (CCCPR and conventional CPR with rescue breathing) was estimated. Among 816 385 people experiencing OHCAs before emergency medical services arrival, 249 970 (30.6%) received CCCPR, 100 469 (12.3%) received conventional CPR, and 465 946 (57.1%) received no CPR. The proportion of OHCA patients receiving CCCPR or any CPR (either CCCPR or conventional CPR) by bystanders increased from 17.4% to 39.3% ( P for trend <0.001) and from 34.6% to 47.3% ( P for trend <0.001), respectively. The incidence of survival with favorable neurological outcome attributed to CCCPR per 10 million population significantly increased from 0.6 to 28.3 ( P for trend=0.010), and that by any bystander-initiated CPR significantly increased from 9.0 to 43.6 ( P for trend=0.003). Conclusion—: Nationwide dissemination of CCCPR for lay-rescuers was associated with the increase in the incidence of survival with favorable neurological outcome after OHCAs in Japan.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potentially favorable option for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF).^1-5 However, this method is invasive, expensive, and requires substantial human resources.^1-3,6,7 Therefore, it is essential to assess appropriate candidates immediately after hospital arrival.

Despite the proven effectiveness of rapid initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by bystanders, fewer than half of the victims actually receive bystander CPR. We aimed to review the evidence of the barriers and facilitators for bystanders to perform CPR. This scoping review was conducted as part of the continuous evidence evaluation process of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. This review included studies assessing barriers or facilitators for the lay rescuers to perform CPR in actual emergency settings and excluded studies that overlapped with other ILCOR systematic reviews/scoping reviews (e.g. dispatcher instructed CPR etc). The key findings were classified into three kinds of factors: personal factors; CPR knowledge; and procedural issues. We identified 18 eligible studies. Of these studies addressing the reduced willingness to respond to cardiac arrest, 14 related to “personal factors”, 3 to “CPR knowledge”, and 2 to “procedural issues”. On the other hand, we identified 5 articles assessing factors increasing bystanders’ willingness to perform CPR. However, we observed significant heterogeneity among study populations, methodologies, factors definitions, outcome measures utilized and outcomes reported. We found that a number of factors were present in actual settings which either inhibit or facilitate lay rescuers’ performance of CPR. Interventional strategies to improve CPR performance of lay rescuers in the actual settings should be established, taking these factors into consideration.