Any bystander CPR is better than no CPR attempt: An urban myth, misconception, or proved truth?

Aims This paper is analyzing the involvement and effectiveness of the witnesses in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and compares the rate of ROSC and the survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) when the bystanders perform cardiopulmonary resuscutation (CPR) compared to the situation when they did not do anything. Methodology Data was collected during the three-year follow-up of OHCA through the EuReCa_Serbia which is part of the clinical trial of EuReCa_ONE - Clinical Trial NCT02236819.l. Statistic was done by SPSS. Results The chance to achieve ROSC is 1.6 times higher if the witness is absent (OR = 1.625, 95% CI = 1.256 - 2.103). A binary logistic analysis has indicated that independent predictors of the achievement of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) include gender and age, the time of the delivered first DC shock, and indicate that the chances to start CPR is 2.8 times higher if witnesses are present (OR = 2.771, 95% CI = 2.391-3.212), but the chance to achieve ROSC is 1.6 times higher if the witness is not present (OR = 1.625, 95% CI = 1.256 - 2.103). The analysis covered a total number of 4172 patients. In 2383 cases, the witness was present when collapse occurred, resuscitation was initiated in 1618 patients, and the ROSC was achieved at 323. Male gender have a 1.9 times higher chance to achieve the return of spontaneous circulation (OR = 1.981, 95% CI = 1.398 - 2.631). Conclusion According to the current opinion of majority “Any CPR is better than no CPR” needs to be critically analyzed, there are reasons to more deeply and carefully follow up the usefulness of the involvement bystander CPR with the opened possibility that our results indicate that such assistance might even be harmful.