Influence of smartphone-based first aid systems on the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Sissy K Linder, Dennis Bruentje, Martin Deike, Ulrich K Fetzner, Julia J Grannemann, Annika Hoyer, Lydia J Kolaparambil Varghese, André Kobiella, Jan Schmitz, Bernd Strickmann, Jochen Hinkelbein, Gerrit Jansen
{"title":"Influence of smartphone-based first aid systems on the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.","authors":"Sissy K Linder, Dennis Bruentje, Martin Deike, Ulrich K Fetzner, Julia J Grannemann, Annika Hoyer, Lydia J Kolaparambil Varghese, André Kobiella, Jan Schmitz, Bernd Strickmann, Jochen Hinkelbein, Gerrit Jansen","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.25.18786-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the impact of Smartphone-based-first responder-systems (SFRS) such as \"Mobile Retter\" on relevant clinical endpoints in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Rescue service data from the district of Guetersloh between 2013 and 2023 were categorized into four groups based on the initiator of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): lay bystanders with (LB-Tel) and without telephone guidance from the rescue service control center (LB-no-Tel), community first responders (CFR) and emergency medical services (EMS). The results were analyzed using a propensity score analysis with overlap weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 1,620 resuscitations (LB-Tel: N.=493(30.4%); LB-no-Tel: N.=341(21.0%); CFR: N.=187(11.5%); EMS: N.=599(37.0%)) were analyzed. Compared to EMS, the emergency response time (ERT) of CFR was significantly shorter (95%CI: -2.01- -0.89). Regarding achieving a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and a good neurological outcome (OUT), there was no evidence of a difference between CFR and EMS (ROSC:odds ratio (OR):0.90;95%CI:0.56-1.45; OUT: OR:1.04;95%CI:0.42-2.54). However, when comparing CFR with LB-Tel showed a clinically relevant tendency for a favorable effect in relation to ROSC for CFR (ROSC: OR:1.17; 95%CI:0.72-1.92). In contrast, the group of CFR showed a lower chance of achieving a ROSC compared to LB-no-Tel (ROSC: OR:0.86;95%CI:0.51-1.46).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SFRS significantly reduce ERT compared to EMS, but our study was unable to provide evidence of a higher chance of ROSC or a good neurological outcome. To improve the outcome after OHCA, public training in resuscitation measures should be intensified, and the network of CFR should be expanded.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":"91 5","pages":"422-429"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.25.18786-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to evaluate the impact of Smartphone-based-first responder-systems (SFRS) such as "Mobile Retter" on relevant clinical endpoints in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods: Rescue service data from the district of Guetersloh between 2013 and 2023 were categorized into four groups based on the initiator of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): lay bystanders with (LB-Tel) and without telephone guidance from the rescue service control center (LB-no-Tel), community first responders (CFR) and emergency medical services (EMS). The results were analyzed using a propensity score analysis with overlap weighting.

Results: Overall, 1,620 resuscitations (LB-Tel: N.=493(30.4%); LB-no-Tel: N.=341(21.0%); CFR: N.=187(11.5%); EMS: N.=599(37.0%)) were analyzed. Compared to EMS, the emergency response time (ERT) of CFR was significantly shorter (95%CI: -2.01- -0.89). Regarding achieving a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and a good neurological outcome (OUT), there was no evidence of a difference between CFR and EMS (ROSC:odds ratio (OR):0.90;95%CI:0.56-1.45; OUT: OR:1.04;95%CI:0.42-2.54). However, when comparing CFR with LB-Tel showed a clinically relevant tendency for a favorable effect in relation to ROSC for CFR (ROSC: OR:1.17; 95%CI:0.72-1.92). In contrast, the group of CFR showed a lower chance of achieving a ROSC compared to LB-no-Tel (ROSC: OR:0.86;95%CI:0.51-1.46).

Conclusions: SFRS significantly reduce ERT compared to EMS, but our study was unable to provide evidence of a higher chance of ROSC or a good neurological outcome. To improve the outcome after OHCA, public training in resuscitation measures should be intensified, and the network of CFR should be expanded.

基于智能手机的急救系统对院外心脏骤停结果的影响
背景:本研究旨在评估基于智能手机的第一响应者系统(SFRS)如“移动Retter”对院外心脏骤停(OHCA)相关临床终点的影响。方法:根据2013 - 2023年Guetersloh地区的心肺复苏(CPR)发起者分为4组:有(LB-Tel)和没有救援服务控制中心(LB-no-Tel)电话指导的非专业旁观者、社区第一响应者(CFR)和紧急医疗服务(EMS)。使用重叠加权的倾向得分分析对结果进行分析。结果:总共有1,620例复苏(LB-Tel: n =493(30.4%);LB-no-Tel: n = 341 (21.0%);CFR: n = 187 (11.5%);EMS: n =599(37.0%))。与EMS相比,CFR的应急反应时间(ERT)显著缩短(95%CI: -2.01 ~ -0.89)。关于实现自发循环恢复(ROSC)和良好的神经预后(OUT), CFR和EMS之间没有差异的证据(ROSC:优势比(OR):0.90;95%CI:0.56-1.45;: OR: 1.04; 95%置信区间:0.42—-2.54)。然而,当比较CFR与LB-Tel时,显示出与ROSC相关的CFR有利效果的临床相关趋势(ROSC: OR:1.17;95%置信区间:0.72—-1.92)。相比之下,与LB-no-Tel相比,CFR组实现ROSC的机会较低(ROSC: OR:0.86;95%CI:0.51-1.46)。结论:与EMS相比,SFRS显著降低了ERT,但我们的研究无法提供更高的ROSC机会或良好的神经预后的证据。为提高OHCA后的救治效果,应加强急救措施的公共培训,扩大CFR网络。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信