The dispatcher assisted resuscitation trial: Indirect benefits of emergency research

ObjectiveConduct of emergency research under waiver of consent produces special challenges. Moreover, the act of performing research may have unintended effects, potentially beneficial or detrimental. The Dispatcher-Assisted Randomized Trial (DART) was designed to compare 2 types of dispatcher cardiopulmonary (CPR) instruction, but not intended to affect the proportion of arrest victims that received bystander CPR. We sought to determine whether odds of receiving bystander CPR were higher during DART than during the periods before and after.MethodsWe conducted an observational cohort study of 8626 adults who suffered non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest prior to emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in greater King County, Washington, between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2011. Bystander CPR status was assessed through review of dispatch recordings and EMS reports to classify any bystander CPR (any B-CPR), and further categorized as bystander CPR with or without dispatcher assistance (DA-CPR and B-CPR, no DA). We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate odds of B-CPR before, during, and after DART.ResultsThe proportions receiving any B-CPR were 52% before DART (1817/3468), 59% during DART (2093/3527), and 54% after DART (885/1631). Compared to the period before DART, odds of receiving any B-CPR were higher during DART (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.23-1.49), but no different after (OR = 1.10, 0.98-1.24). Compared to the before period, odds of DA-CPR were higher during DART (OR = 1.79, 1.59-2.02) but no different after (OR = 0.94, 0.80-1.10).ConclusionsOdds of bystander CPR were higher during the trial, an increase related to higher likelihood of DA-CPR. The finding suggests a possible indirect community-wide benefit due to the interventional trial.