Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Resuscitation (un-)wanted: Does anyone care? A retrospective real data analysis
Authors' conclusion
In case of CPR EMS-personnel are often confronted with DNACPR-orders. Patients are older and have more previous diseases than patients without DNACPR. Initiated layperson-CPR might lead to misinterpretation of patients will with impact on CPR-duration and unwanted measures.
Study context
- Population
- Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation incidents attended by emergency medical services (EMS) in a German county (250,000 inhabitants), 2016–2022
- Participants
- 1,474 CPR events
- Exposure
- DNACPR vs no DNACPR in OHCA
- DNACPRn = 263
- No DNACPRn = 1,211reference
- Outcome
- Prevalence of DNACPR in OHCA and its influence on CPR duration, Advanced-Life-Support (ALS) measures and decision making
Methodological detailssingle German county, EMS records 2016–2022
- Single German county
- EMS records 2016–2022
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Prevalence of DNACPR
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Age, DNACPR vs no DNACPR
- Age: 80.0 ± 10.3 vs 68.0 ± 13.9 years (DNACPR vs no DNACPR)
- P < 0.001
ASA-status III/IV, DNACPR vs no DNACPR
- ASA III/IV: n = 214 (81.3%) vs n = 616 (50.9%) (DNACPR vs no DNACPR)
- P < 0.001
Initial layperson-CPR, DNACPR vs no DNACPR
- Initial layperson-CPR: n = 148 (56.3%) vs n = 647 (55.7%) (DNACPR vs no DNACPR)
- P = 0.40
Airway management, DNACPR vs no DNACPR
- Airway management: n = 185 (70.3%) vs n = 1,069 (88.3%) (DNACPR vs no DNACPR)
- P < 0.001
Original publication
Resuscitation (un-)wanted: Does anyone care? A retrospective real data analysis. Resuscitation. Published 24 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →