Skip to main content

Location of Cardiac Arrest Affects Likelihood of Bystander CPR


AURORA, Colorado — US researchers say much more work is needed to improve rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, as their new data show that the likelihood of a person receiving CPR depends on the median income and the racial composition of their neighborhood [1].Dr Comilla Sasson (University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora) and colleagues analyzed surveillance data from 29 American cities and report their findings in the October 25, 2012 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
"The odds of receiving bystander-initiated CPR were approximately 50% lower in low-income black neighborhoods than in high-income nonblack neighborhoods," Sasson told heartwire . And even in high-income black neighborhoods, patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest "were approximately 23% less likely to receive bystander-initiated CPR than were patients in high-income nonblack neighborhoods.
 
We spend a ton of time documenting disparities, but we don't spend half as much time trying to fix them.
 
"We haven't done a very good job of getting CPR execution and awareness into the public mainstream for our black residents in the US, and I think there are a couple of different reasons," Sasson observes, noting that follow-up work her team has performed has helped provide information on this. Now they are hoping to effect change by going out into the community and educating people about how to perform hands-only CPR and, in turn, getting those people to educate their family and friends.
"I would love to see this replicated nationally and internationally," she says. "We spend a ton of time documenting disparities, but we don't spend half as much time trying to fix them. My dream is that, when you learn how to tie your shoelaces, you also learn what hands-only CPR is."
CPR Most Likely in High-Income White and Integrated Neighborhoods
Sasson and colleagues explain that more than 300 000 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occur in the US each year, and outcomes vary markedly, with survival rates ranging from 0.2% in Detroit to 16.0% in Seattle. The variation can be explained, in part, by different rates of bystander-initiated CPR. On average, bystanders administer CPR in less than one-third of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.
Prior studies have shown racial and socioeconomic disparities in the provision of bystander-initiated CPR, but it's not clear to what extent such disparities are due to neighborhood effects. And although a few studies have looked at the effect of neighborhood on bystander CPR, these were conducted within small geographic areas and therefore may not be generalizable to other settings, say the researchers.
They analyzed data from the multicenter Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) study, which at the time (2005–2009) incorporated 29 US cities. The neighborhood in which each cardiac arrest occurred was determined from census-tract data and classified on the basis of median household income per year: high-income (>$40 000) or low-income (<$40 000). An area was deemed "white" or "black" if more than 80% of the census tract was predominantly of one race. Neighborhoods without a predominant racial composition were classified as "integrated."
Among 14 225 patients with cardiac arrest, bystander-initiated CPR was provided to 4068 (28.6%).
As compared with patients who had a cardiac arrest in high-income white neighborhoods, those in low-income black neighborhoods were around 50% less likely to receive CPR from a bystander (odds ratio 0.49). The same was true of those with cardiac arrest in neighborhoods characterized as low-income white (OR 0.65), low-income integrated (OR 0.62), and high-income black (OR 0.77).
The odds ratio for bystander-initiated CPR in high-income integrated neighborhoods (1.03) was similar to that for high-income white neighborhoods.
"We found that on the individual level, people who were black or Latino or older were less likely to have someone stop and do CPR. Also, if you live in a poor neighborhood, your likelihood of getting someone to do CPR is significantly less than if you live in a white or integrated higher-income neighborhood," Sasson commented.
Identify the Barriers and Try to Overcome Them
Sasson explained that she and her team conducted a follow-up study in Columbus, OH, where they questioned focus groups of residents from poor black neighborhoods as to why they were not learning and performing CPR. "What we found was pretty interesting. There are a lot of different reasons," she notes.
First off, "people just couldn't afford to get even the most basic type of CPR certification, which costs $50 to $75," she says. "If they make less than $20 000 a year, it's a matter of 'Am I going to feed my kids tonight or am I going to get a CPR certification?' "
There's also a perception of danger, she explains. "People said, 'If I stop to help someone, they might try to mug me, and I don't want to put myself at risk.' Other concerns included 'If I do it wrong, am I going to get sued?' " And finally, many people 'just didn't want to breathe on some random person's mouth,' " she observes, but notes that this obstacle should now largely be overcome with the emphasis firmly on hands-only CPR.
 
One woman educated 20 participants in her Zumba class about how to do hands-only CPR. What we found is that this process is really empowering.
 
She explains that they then partnered with the local chapters of the AHA andAmerican Red Cross to teach CPR. "We gave them CPR kits that had a DVD and an inflatable mannequin in them, and we taught them how to do hands-only CPR. What we found is that this process is really empowering. They were given the ability to teach family and friends a lifesaving skill, but most important, they were able to potentially save a life. One woman educated 20 participants in her Zumba class about how to do hands-only CPR."
Key to making this approach work is to make the CPR courses free and to identify organizations that are already working in these neighborhoods, she says.
And there is no reason, she says, why hands-only CPR cannot be taught in schools or be a requirement for getting a driver's license. "And wouldn't it be great if, while people were at the doctor's or in the security line at the airport, we could have a public-service announcement: 'Do you know what hands-only CPR is?' I think we would greatly increase the uptake of CPR provision in the community that way."
Sasson has no conflicts of interest. Disclosures for the coauthors are listed on www.nejm.org .

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...