RESUMEN
Aim: In the event of an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) it is recommended for a sole untrained bystander to perform compression only CPR (CO-CPR). However, it remains unknown if CO-CPR is inferior to standard CPR (S-CPR), including both compressions and ventilation, in terms of survival. One could speculate that due to the current pandemic, bystanders may be more hesitant performing mouth-to-mouth ventilation. The aim of this study is to assess the association between type of bystander CPR and survival in OHCA. Methods: This study included all patients with a bystander treated OHCA between year 2015-2019 in ages 18-100 using The Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (SRCR). We compared CO-CPR to S-CPR in terms of 30-day survival using a propensity score approach based on machine learning adjusting for a large number of covariates. Results: A total of 13,481 patients were included (5,293 with S-CPR and 8,188 with CO-CPR). The matched subgroup consisted of 2994 cases in each group.Gradient boosting were the best models with regards to predictive accuracy (for type of bystander CPR) and covariate balance. The difference between S-CPR and CO-CPR in all 30 models computed on covariate adjustment and 1-to-1 matching were non-significant. In the 30 weighted models, three comparisons (S-CPR vs. CO-CPR) were significant in terms of improved survival; odds ratio for men was 1.21 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.43; Average treatment effect (ATE)); for patients ≥73 years 1.57 (99% CI 1.17-2.12) for Average treatment effect on treated (ATT) and 1.63 (99% CI 1.18-2.25) for ATE. Remaining 27 models showed no differences. No significances remain after adjustment for multiple testing. Conclusion: We found no significant differences between S-CPR and CO-CPR in terms of survival, supporting current recommendations for untrained bystanders regarding CO-CPR.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT: The efficacy and safety of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor as part of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients, and in older patients, with acute coronary syndrome is reviewed. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and HTA databases were searched (September 2, 2020) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pooled risk differences (clopidogrel minus ticagrelor) were estimated using random-effects meta-analyses, and certainty of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. In all, 29 RCTs were identified. The risk difference for all-cause mortality was 0.6% (-0.03% to 1.3%), cardiovascular (CV) mortality: 0.6% (95% confidence interval: 0.01% to 1.1%), myocardial infarction (MI): 0.9% (0.4% to 1.3%), stent thrombosis: 0.7% (0.4 to 1.1%), clinically significant bleeding: -1.9% (-3.7% to -0.2%), major bleeding: -0.9% (-1.6% to -0.1%), and dyspnea: -5.8% (-7.7% to -3.8%). In older patients, there were no differences between the comparison groups regarding all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and MI, whereas the risk of clinically significant bleeding and major bleeding was lower in the clopidogrel group, -5.9% (-11 to -0.9%, 1 RCT) and -2.4% (-4.4% to -0.3%), respectively. Compared with ticagrelor, clopidogrel may result in little or no difference regarding all-cause mortality. Although not evident in older patients, it cannot be excluded that clopidogrel may be slightly less efficient in reducing the risk of CV mortality and MI, whereas ticagrelor is probably more efficacious in reducing the risk of stent thrombosis. Clopidogrel results in a reduced risk of dyspnea and clinically significant bleeding and in older people probably in a reduced risk of major bleeding.
