Knowledge and attitudes to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)- a cross-sectional population survey in Sweden.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Rates of bystander CPR are increasing, yet mortality after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains high. The aim of this survey was to explore public knowledge and attitudes to CPR. Our hypotheses were that recent CPR training (< 5 years) would be associated with a high-quality response in a case vignette of OHCA with agonal breathing, and associated with an interest to become a smartphone app responder in suspected OHCA. METHODS: Data were collected through a web survey. Respondents (≥18 years) in Skåne County, Sweden were members of a panel created by a market research company. Data were weighted with respect to gender, age, municipalities and level of education to increase generalisability to the general population. RESULTS: A total of 1060 eligible answers were analysed. Seventy-six percent of non-healthcare professionals (n = 912) had participated in a CPR course at some time in life, 58 percent during the previous five years. The recommended CPR algorithm was known by 57 percent, whereas knowledge of the location of the nearest automated external defibrillator (AED) in a home environment was poor. Recent CPR training (< 5 years) did not favour high-quality response in a case vignette of OHCA with agonal breathing, but was one predictor of wanting to become a smartphone app responder. CONCLUSION: This study highlights possible areas of improvement in CPR training, which might improve OHCA identification and facilitate knowledge retention. The potential to recruit smartphone app responders seems promising in certain groups.

The study protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in cardiac arrest) study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation. METHODS/DESIGN: This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1). RESULTS: Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR. CONCLUSION: This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.