Biomedical subjects

Judy Powell

Publications and source records attributed to Judy Powell.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Stress reactions and perceived difficulties of lay responders to a medical emergency.

BACKGROUND: Bystander CPR rates remain low. One reason may be that the thought of responding to an emergency is so stressful that it decreases the willingness of laypersons to respond. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the amount of stress experienced by lay responders to a medical emergency and to identify barriers that may have impeded their response to the event. METHODS: Responses from 1243 laypersons responding to an emergency during the Public Access Defibrillation Trial were analyzed in a mixed methods study. Stress related to the event was recorded using a 0 (none) to 5 (severe) scale. Qualitative responses to the question of "What was most difficult?" about the event were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: Reported stress levels were low overall (mean 1.2, median 1.0). Laypersons responding to an emergency presumed to be a cardiac arrest had higher stress than those involved in other events (median 2.0 versus 1.0). Stress levels were higher in residential than in public settings (mean 1.41, median 1.0 versus mean 1.13, median 1.0). Those who fit a certain profile (females, non-native English speakers) reported statistically higher stress levels than others. A total of 614 qualitative responses were studied and aggregated into four major categories of difficulty: practical issues; characteristics of the victim; interpersonal issues; thoughts and feelings of the lay responder. Most difficulties were in the category of practical issues. CONCLUSIONS: Among these study volunteer lay responders, low levels of stress were reported. Incorporating descriptions of the difficulties experienced by lay responders in CPR/AED training curricula may make courses more realistic and useful.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

How well are cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator skills retained over time? Results from the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The current standard for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) retraining for laypersons is a four-hour course every two years. Others have documented substantial skill deterioration during this time period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 1) the retention of core CPR and AED skills among volunteer laypersons and 2) the time required to retrain laypersons to proficiency as a function of time since initial training. METHODS: This was an observational follow-up study evaluating CPR and AED skill retention and testing/retraining time up through 17 months after initial training. The study took place at 1,260 facilities recruited by 24 North American clinical research centers, and included 6,182 volunteer laypersons participating in the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial. Training to proficiency in either CPR only (N = 2,426) or CPR+AED (N = 3,756) was followed by testing/retraining provided three to 17 months later. Retraining was done in brief, one-on-one, individualized, interactive sessions. The outcome studied was instructors' global assessments of performance of CPR and AED skill adequacy, i.e., whether CPR actions would likely result in perfusion (yes/no) and whether AED actions would result in a shock through the heart (yes/no). RESULTS: For global CPR performance, 79%, 73%, and 71% of volunteers tested for the first time since initial training three to five, six to 11, and 12 to 17 months after initial training, respectively, were judged by their instructors as having adequate performance (p < 0.001, chi-square for linear trend). For global AED performance, 91%, 86%, and 84% of volunteers, respectively, were judged as having adequate performance (p < 0.001). The mean (+/- standard deviation) times required to test and retrain volunteers to proficiency were 5.7 (+/- 4.0) minutes for CPR skills and 7.7 (+/- 4.6) minutes for CPR+AED skills. CONCLUSIONS: Among PAD Trial volunteer laypersons participating in a simulated resuscitation, the proportions of volunteers judged by instructors to have adequate CPR and AED skills demonstrated small declines associated with longer intervals between initial training and subsequent testing. However, based on instructors' judgment, large majorities of volunteers still retained both CPR and AED core skills through 17 months after initial training. Furthermore, individual testing and retraining for CPR and AED skills were usually accomplished in less than 10 minutes per volunteer. Additional research is essential to identify training and evaluation techniques that predict adequate CPR and AED skill performance of laypersons when applied to an actual cardiac arrest.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Modeling instructor preferences for CPR and AED competence estimation.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator (AED) skills competency can be tested using a checklist of component skills, individually graded "pass" or "fail." Scores are typically calculated as the percentage of skills passed, but may differ from an instructor's overall subjective assessment of simulated CPR or AED adequacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify and evaluate composite measures (methods for scoring checklists) that reflect instructors' subjective assessments of CPR or AED skills performance best. METHODS: Associations between instructor assessment and lay-volunteer skill performance were made using 6380 CPR and 3313 AED skill retention tests collected in the Public Access Defibrillation Trial. Checklists included CPR skills (e.g., calling 911, administering compressions) and AED skills (e.g., positioning electrodes, shocking within 90 s of AED arrival). The instructor's subjective overall assessment (adequate/inadequate) of CPR performance (perfusion) or AED competence (effective shock) was compared to composite measures. We evaluated the traditional composite measure (assigning equal weights to individual skills) and several nontraditional composite measures (assigning variable weights). Skills performed out of sequence were further weighted from 0% (no credit) to 100% (full credit). RESULTS: Composite measures providing full credit for skills performed out of sequence and down-weighting process skills (e.g., calling 911, clearing oneself from the AED) had the strongest association with the instructor's subjective assessment; the traditional CPR composite measure had the weakest association. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that instructors in public CPR and AED classes may tend to down-weight process skills and to excuse step sequencing errors when evaluating CPR and AED skills subjectively for overall proficiency. Testing methods that relate classroom performance to actual performance in the field and to clinical outcomes require further research.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗

PubMed2002

Cost-effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator versus antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias: results of the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) economic analysis substudy.

BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an effective but expensive device. We used prospectively collected data from a large randomized clinical trial of secondary prevention of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias to determine the cost-effectiveness of the ICD compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, largely with amiodarone. METHODS AND RESULTS: Charges for initial and repeat hospitalizations, emergency room, and day surgery stays and the costs of antiarrhythmic drugs were collected on 1008 patients. Detailed records of all other medical encounters and expenses were collected on a subgroup of 237 patients. Regression models were then created to attribute these expenses to the rest of the patients. Charges were converted to 1997 costs using standard methods. Costs and life years were discounted at 3% per year. Three-year survival data from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators trail were used to calculate the base-case cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio. Six-year, twenty-year, and lifetime C/E ratios were also estimated. At 3 years, total costs were $71 421 for a patient taking AADs and $85 522 for a patient using an ICD, and the ICD provided a 0.21-year survival benefit over AAD treatment. The base-case C/E ratio was thus $66 677 per year of life saved by the ICD compared with AAD therapy (95% CI, $30 761 to $154 768). Six- and 20-year C/E ratios remained stable between $68 000 and $80 000 per year of life saved. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD is moderately cost-effective for secondary prevention of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, as judged from prospectively collected data in a randomized clinical trial.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Quality of life in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial: impact of therapy and influence of adverse symptoms and defibrillator shocks.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use reduces mortality in patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) use. However, the relative impact of these therapies on self-perceived quality of life (QoL) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three self-administered instruments were used to measure generic and disease-specific QoL in Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators trial participants. Generalized linear models were used to assess the relationships between self-perceived QoL and treatment (AAD versus ICD) and adverse symptoms and ICD shocks. To minimize the impact of missing data, only patients surviving 1 year were included in the primary analyses. Baseline characteristics among QoL participants (n=905) and nonparticipants (n=111) were similar, but participants who survived 1 year (n=800) were healthier at baseline than nonsurvivors (n=105). Of the 800 patients in the primary analysis, characteristics of those randomized to AAD (n=384) versus ICD (n=416) were similar. Overall, ICD and AAD use were associated with similar alterations in QoL. The development of sporadic shocks and adverse symptoms were each associated with reduced physical functioning and mental well-being and increased concerns among ICD recipients, whereas development of adverse symptoms was associated with reduced physical functioning and increased concerns among AAD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: ICD and AAD therapy are associated with similar alterations in self-perceived QoL over 1-year follow-up. Adverse symptoms were associated with reduced self-perceived QoL in both groups, and sporadic shocks were associated with reduced QoL in ICD recipients.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

The end-of-study patient survey: methods influencing response rate in the AVID Trial.

Patient surveys are commonly distributed at the end of a multicenter clinical trial. This Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) substudy prospectively explored the relationship between methods used in distributing a survey and the quantity of responses received. AVID was a multicenter, randomized trial comparing survival in arrhythmia patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs versus implantable defibrillators. At study termination, a patient satisfaction survey was mailed to the 664 surviving participants. Questions included reasons for study participation, study benefits and problems and quality of care. Survey mailings were stratified by four factors in a 2x2x2x2 factorial design: delivery mode (overnight vs. regular mail), certificate of appreciation, timing of administration ("early" vs. "late") and cover letter signed by a physician versus coordinator. Patients were randomly assigned to received one of 16 combinations of these four factors. Clinical characteristics and response rates were evaluated. Patients were more likely to return surveys delivered by overnight mail (75% vs. 68%, p=0.04), with no certificate of appreciation enclosed (75% vs. 68%, p=0.05) and administered close to the time of study closeout (79% vs. 72%, p=0.085). Compared to the 184 nonrespondents, the 456 (71%) respondents were older, Caucasian, lived with others, were high school graduates and less likely to have Medicare/Medicaid or HMO insurance (p<0.03). Physician recommendation was the most common reason cited for trial participation. Main benefits included increased knowledge of their medical condition and improved health. Reported problems included parking, transportation and excess clinic wait time. This randomized study demonstrated that methods of patient survey distribution affect the survey return rate. Additional studies should explore mechanisms for maximizing return rates.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Effect of surgical revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease and ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo resuscitation from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias often have significant coronary artery disease, and revascularization has been shown to reduce myocardial ischemia and cardiac arrest episodes in this patient population. The magnitude of benefit attributed to revascularization has varied by study, and the use of adjunct implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has not been well-characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) registry included 3117 patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, of whom 2321 (77%) had documented coronary artery disease and 281 (17%) underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting revascularization procedure after the index event. Patients who underwent a revascularization procedure were younger, had a lower incidence rate of prior myocardial infarction and ventricular arrhythmia, had a higher left ventricular ejection fraction, had less congestive heart failure, and were more likely to have had ventricular fibrillation as the presenting arrhythmia. Patients who underwent revascularization had a better survival rate than did those who did not undergo such a procedure after the index event, and adjustment for differing baseline patient covariates did not alter the relative survival rate benefit. Further, ICD implantation offered a similar survival rate advantage to those patients in the AVID registry with coronary artery disease independent of revascularization. CONCLUSION: Coronary revascularization in the AVID registry patients with coronary artery disease effected a survival rate benefit that was not attributable to differences in baseline patient characteristics. The benefit of ICD on patient survival rate was not attenuated by a revascularization procedure.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Public defibrillation: increased survival from a structured response system.

The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled study designed to compare the number of persons surviving to hospital discharge after experiencing an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) among "community units" randomized to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) only or CPR plus an automated external defibrillator (AED). In 24 centers across the United States and Canada, 993 community units, composed of 1260 individual facilities, trained more than 19,000 layperson responders in CPR-only or CPR+AED. Survival to hospital discharge in the CPR+AED arm was double that of the CPR-only arm (30 vs 15, P = .03; RR = 2.0, 95% CI [1.07-3.77]). Intense focus on facility infrastructure, including responder recruitment and training, communication, evaluation, and oversight, was necessary for implementing the emergency response systems for the trial. Use of an AED within this structured response system can increase the number of survivors to hospital discharge after OOH-CA. Trained nonmedical responders can use AEDs safely and effectively.

Adolescent↗