TY - JOUR
T1 - Association between basic life support and survival in sports-related sudden cardiac arrest
T2 - a meta-analysis
AU - Michelland, Laurianne
AU - Murad, Mohammad H.
AU - Bougouin, Wulfran
AU - Der Broek, Mark Van
AU - Prokop, Larry J.
AU - Anys, Soraya
AU - Perier, Marie Cécile
AU - Cariou, Alain
AU - Empana, Jean Philippe
AU - Marijon, Eloi
AU - Jouven, Xavier
AU - Jabre, Patricia
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Louis Pechmajou (France), Marcus Eng Hock Ong (Singapore), Si Oon Cheah (Singapore), David Eastwood (UK), Emily Andrew (Australia), Kylie Dyson (Australia), Brett Toresdahl (USA), Jonathan Drezner (USA), and Kimberly Harmon (USA) for their contribution, helping, and sharing the relevant statistics of their studies for this systematic review.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/1/14
Y1 - 2023/1/14
N2 - Aims To evaluate the association of basic life support with survival after sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (SR-SCA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of several databases from each database inception to 31 July 2021 with- and results out language restrictions was conducted. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated one of three scenarios in patients with SR-SCA: (i) bystander presence, (ii) bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or (iii) bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use and provided information on survival. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. The primary outcome was survival at the longest follow up. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate certainty in the evidence. In total, 28 non-randomized studies were included. The meta-analysis showed significant benefit on survival in all three groups: bystander presence [odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48–4.37; I2 = 25%; 9 studies—988 patients], bystander CPR (OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.36–6.25; I2 = 54%; 23 studies—2523 patients), and bystander AED use (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.58–7.70; I2 = 16%; 19 studies—1227 patients). The GRADE certainty of evidence was judged to be moderate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion In patients with SR-SCA, bystander presence, bystander CPR, and bystander AED use were significantly associated with survival. These results highlight the importance of witness intervention and encourage countries to develop their first aid training policy and AED installation in sport settings.
AB - Aims To evaluate the association of basic life support with survival after sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (SR-SCA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of several databases from each database inception to 31 July 2021 with- and results out language restrictions was conducted. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated one of three scenarios in patients with SR-SCA: (i) bystander presence, (ii) bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or (iii) bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use and provided information on survival. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. The primary outcome was survival at the longest follow up. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate certainty in the evidence. In total, 28 non-randomized studies were included. The meta-analysis showed significant benefit on survival in all three groups: bystander presence [odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48–4.37; I2 = 25%; 9 studies—988 patients], bystander CPR (OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.36–6.25; I2 = 54%; 23 studies—2523 patients), and bystander AED use (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.58–7.70; I2 = 16%; 19 studies—1227 patients). The GRADE certainty of evidence was judged to be moderate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion In patients with SR-SCA, bystander presence, bystander CPR, and bystander AED use were significantly associated with survival. These results highlight the importance of witness intervention and encourage countries to develop their first aid training policy and AED installation in sport settings.
KW - Automated external defibrillators
KW - Bystander
KW - Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
KW - Sports-related sudden cardiac arrest
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85146364675&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85146364675&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac586
DO - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac586
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36285872
AN - SCOPUS:85146364675
SN - 0195-668X
VL - 44
SP - 180
EP - 192
JO - European Heart Journal
JF - European Heart Journal
IS - 3
ER -