Retrospective observational study evaluates bystander type impact on successful shocks in OHCA patients, indicating higher success with trained rescuers.
Objective: To evaluate the association between bystander type and successful bystanderdelivered shocks among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients with an initial shockable rhythm. Methods: This single-center, retrospective observational study included non-traumatic adult OHCA patients with witnessed and an initial shockable rhythm who were transported to our hospital between April 2013 and June 2024. The term "successful bystander-delivered shocks" was defined as use of an automated external defibrillator by a bystander before emergency medical services arrival. Bystanders were categorized as family members, lay bystanders, on-duty staff, or healthcare professionals. On-duty staff were defined as persons working at the scene at the time of OHCA, and lay bystanders as non-staff passers-by . The primary outcome was successful bystander-delivered shocks . Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: 285 patients were included. Median age was 59 [49-69] years, 254 (89.1%) were male, and 184 (64.6%) received bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The bystander was a family member in 54 cases, a lay bystander in 79 cases, on-duty staff in 131 cases, and a healthcare professional in 21 cases. Successful bystander-delivered shocks differed markedly by bystander type: 3.7% among family members, 36.7% among lay bystanders, 59.5% among on-duty staff, and 76.2% among healthcare professionals. In multivariable logistic regression, the adjusted odds ratios for successful bystander-delivered shocks by bystander type were on-duty staff, 2.29 [1.26-4.17]; healthcare professionals, 6.26 [1.96-19.9]; and family members, 0.08 [0.02-0.36], compared with lay bystanders. Conclusion: OHCA patients for whom the rescuing bystander was on-duty staff or a healthcare professional were significantly more likely to receive successful bystanderdelivered automated external defibrillator shocks than those rescued by lay bystanders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Torai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: