Aims:

This study aimed at comparing the success rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) between two different architecturally designed emergency departments (EDs) in the same facility.

Methods:

This was a retrospective study conducted at an ED at a tertiary hospital. Subjects who underwent CPR due to cardiac arrest (CA) were included in two different ED types, a corridortype ED (CED) and arena-type ED (AED). The CPR duration (minutes), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, admission type and initial rhythm type were recorded. A positive ROSC was considered successful CPR. The results of the two ED types were compared.

Results:

Overall, 380 CPR events were studied (mean age: 65.1 ± 15.5 years, male: 71%, n = 230 for the CED group; mean age: 64.8 ± 16.1 years, male: 63%, n = 150 for the AED group). The demographic characteristics of the two groups did not show a significant difference. The average durations of CPR were similar in CED and AED (36.1 ± 12.6 and 36.8 ± 15.1, respectively, p = 0.436). The rate of ROSC was higher in the AED group compared with the CED group (16.7% vs 9.6%, respectively, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference by the means of admission type or type of initial rhythm between the two groups.

Conclusions:

This study showed that CEDs may be associated with lower CPR success rates than AEDs are. This may be the result of the composition of the team and available equipment, as well as the ED’s architectural design.

Keywords: Design, efficacy, resuscitation, team.