首页> 外文期刊>Open access Emergency Medicine >A multicenter prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy of escalating higher biphasic versus low biphasic energy defibrillations in patients presenting with cardiac arrest in the in-hospital environment
【24h】

A multicenter prospective randomized study comparing the efficacy of escalating higher biphasic versus low biphasic energy defibrillations in patients presenting with cardiac arrest in the in-hospital environment

机译:一项多中心前瞻性随机研究,比较了住院环境中出现心脏骤停的患者中双相和低相双相能量除颤升级的疗效

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Biphasic defibrillation has been practiced worldwide for >15?years. Yet, consensus does not exist on the best energy levels for optimal outcomes when used in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF)/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled trial of 235 adult cardiac arrest patients with VF/VT was conducted in the emergency and cardiology departments. One group received low-energy (LE) shocks at 150–150–150?J and the other escalating higher-energy (HE) shocks at 200–300–360?J. If return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was not achieved by the third shock, LE patients crossed over to the HE arm and HE patients continued at 360?J. Primary end point was ROSC. Secondary end points were 24-hour, 7-day, and 30-day survival. Results: Both groups were comparable for age, sex, cardiac risk factors, and duration of collapse and VF/VT. Of the 118 patients randomized to the LE group, 48 crossed over to the HE protocol, 24 for persistent VF, and 24 for recurrent VF. First-shock termination rates for HE and LE patients were 66.67% and 64.41%, respectively ( P =0.78, confidence interval: 0.65–1.89). First-shock ROSC rates were 25.64% and 29.66%, respectively ( P =0.56, confidence interval: 0.46–1.45). The 24-hour, 7-day, and 30-day survival rates were 85.71%, 74.29%, and 62.86% for first-shock ROSC LE patients and 70.00%, 50.00%, and 46.67% for first-shock ROSC HE patients, respectively. Conversion rates for further shocks at 200?J and 300?J were low, but increased to 38.95% at 360?J. Conclusion: First-shock termination and ROSC rates were not significantly different between LE and HE biphasic defibrillation for cardiac arrest patients. Patients responded best at 150/200?J and at 360?J energy levels. For patients with VF/pulseless VT, consideration is needed to escalate quickly to HE shocks at 360?J if not successfully defibrillated with 150 or 200?J initially.
机译:背景:双相除颤在世界范围内已实施了15年以上。但是,当用于室颤(VF)/无脉搏性室性心动过速(VT)的患者时,对于最佳结果的最佳能量水平尚无共识。方法:该前瞻性,随机对照研究在急诊和心脏病科进行了235例VF / VT的成人心脏骤停患者的研究。一组受到150-150-150?J的低能(LE)冲击,另一组受到200-300-360?J的高能(HE)冲击。如果第三次电击未能达到自然循环(ROSC)的恢复,则LE患者越过HE臂,HE患者继续以360?J的速度前进。主要终点是ROSC。次要终点是24小时,7天和30天生存期。结果:两组在年龄,性别,心脏危险因素,虚脱持续时间和VF / VT方面均具有可比性。在随机分为LE组的118例患者中,有48例转入了HE方案,其中24例为持续性VF,24例为复发性VF。 HE和LE患者的首次电击终止率分别为66.67%和64.41%(P = 0.78,置信区间:0.65-1.89)。第一次休克的ROSC发生率分别为25.64%和29.66%(P = 0.56,置信区间:0.46-1.45)。首次休克ROSC LE患者的24小时,7天和30天生存率分别为85.71%,74.29%和62.86%,首次休克ROSC HE患者为70.00%,50.00%和46.67%,分别。在200?J和300?J处进一步震动的转换率较低,但在360?J处增加至38.95%。结论:LE和HE双相除颤对心脏骤停患者的首次电击终止和ROSC率无显着差异。患者在150/200?J和360?J能量水平下反应最佳。对于VF /无脉冲VT患者,如果最初未能成功地对150或200?J除颤,则需要考虑迅速将其升至360?J的HE休克。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号