4.5 Article

Sex differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest interventions within the province of British Columbia, Canada

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 128-134

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.01.016

关键词

Sex differences; Out of hospital; Cardiac arrest

资金

  1. CanROC BC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is common among females and males alike; however, previous studies reported differences in outcomes between sexes in different regions. To investigate possible explanations for this disparity, we examined sex differences in resuscitation interventions in the province of British Columbia (BC). Methods: We performed an observational analysis of the BC Cardiac Arrest Registry (2011-16). We included adults with non-traumatic and EMS-treated OHCA. We examined sex differences in bystander CPR, chest compression rate, and intra-arrest transport using chi-square tests, student's t-test, multivariable linear and logistic regressions. Results: In total, 7398 patients were eligible for the bystander CPR analysis; 31% were female. More males received bystander CPR (54%vs.50%); however, male sex was not associated with bystander CPR after adjustment for confounders (adjusted OR male vs. female: 1.07, 95% CI 0.96, 1.18). There was no difference in the chest compression rate for males and females in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Among subjects who did not achieve prehospital ROSC (n = 5225, 32% females), 64% were pronounced dead at the scene with the remaining transported to hospital. Males more often underwent infra-arrest transport than females (36.7% vs. 34.0%). After adjustment, males had 1.2 greater odds of being transported to hospital than females (95%CI 1.04, 1.37). Conclusions: We did not detect an association between sex and bystander CPR or chest compression rate. In those who did not achieve prehospital ROSC, males had 1.2-fold greater odds of being transported to hospital compared to females.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据