首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.
【24h】

Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.

机译:使用自动化的负荷分配带状胸部按压设备进行院外心脏骤停复苏。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: Only 1% to 8% of adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survive to hospital discharge. OBJECTIVE: To compare resuscitation outcomes before and after an urban emergency medical services (EMS) system switched from manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to load-distributing band (LDB) CPR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A phased, observational cohort evaluation with intention-to-treat analysis of 783 adults with out-of-hospital, nontraumatic cardiac arrest. A total of 499 patients were included in the manual CPR phase (January 1, 2001, to March 31, 2003) and 284 patients in the LDB-CPR phase (December 20, 2003, to March 31, 2005); of these patients, the LDB device was applied in 210 patients. INTERVENTION: Urban EMS system change from manual CPR to LDB-CPR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), with secondary outcome measures of survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge, and neurological outcome at discharge. RESULTS: Patients in the manual CPR and LDB-CPR phases were comparable except for a faster response time interval (mean difference, 26 seconds) and more EMS-witnessed arrests (18.7% vs 12.6%) with LDB. Rates for ROSC and survival were increased with LDB-CPR compared with manual CPR (for ROSC, 34.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29.2%-40.3% vs 20.2%; 95% CI, 16.9%-24.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.38-2.72; for survival to hospital admission, 20.9%; 95% CI, 16.6%-26.1% vs 11.1%; 95% CI, 8.6%-14.2%; adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.23-2.86; and for survival to hospital discharge, 9.7%; 95% CI, 6.7%-13.8% vs 2.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-4.8%; adjusted OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.77). In secondary analysis of the 210 patients in whom the LDB device was applied, 38 patients (18.1%) survived to hospital admission (95% CI, 13.4%-23.9%) and 12 patients (5.7%) survived to hospital discharge (95% CI, 3.0%-9.3%). Among patients in the manual CPR and LDB-CPR groups who survived to hospital discharge, there was no significant difference between groups in CerebralPerformance Category (P = .36) or Overall Performance Category (P = .40). The number needed to treat for the adjusted outcome survival to discharge was 15 (95% CI, 9-33). CONCLUSION: Compared with resuscitation using manual CPR, a resuscitation strategy using LDB-CPR on EMS ambulances is associated with improved survival to hospital discharge in adults with out-of-hospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest.
机译:背景:院外心脏骤停的成年人中只有1%至8%可以存活到出院。目的:比较城市紧急医疗服务(EMS)系统从人工心肺复苏(CPR)切换到负荷分配带(LDB)CPR之前和之后的复苏结果。设计,地点和患者:一项分阶段的观察性队列评估,对783名院外非创伤性心脏骤停的成年人进行意向性治疗分析。手动CPR阶段(2001年1月1日至2003年3月31日)共纳入499名患者,LDB-CPR阶段(2003年12月20日至2005年3月31日)共纳入284位患者;在这些患者中,有210名患者使用了LDB设备。干预:城市EMS系统从手动CPR更改为LDB-CPR。主要观察指标:自发性循环(ROSC)的恢复,包括入院和出院时的生存的次要结局指标以及出院时的神经系统结局。结果:手动CPR和LDB-CPR阶段的患者具有可比性,但LDB的响应时间间隔更快(平均差异为26秒),并且EMS证人的逮捕率更高(分别为18.7%和12.6%)。与手动CPR相比,LDB-CPR的ROSC和生存率有所提高(ROSC为34.5%; 95%置信区间[CI]为29.2%-40.3%vs 20.2%; 95%CI为16.9%-24.0%;已调整比值比[OR],1.94; 95%CI,1.38-2.72;住院率:20.9%; 95%CI,16.6%-26.1%vs 11.1%; 95%CI,8.6%-14.2%;调整后的OR ,1.88; 95%CI,1.23-2.86;到出院生存期,9.7%; 95%CI,6.7%-13.8%vs 2.9%; 95%CI,1.7%-4.8%;校正OR,2.27; 95 %CI,1.11-4.77)。在对使用LDB装置的210例患者进行的二级分析中,有38例(18.1%)存活入院(95%CI,13.4%-23.9%),有12例(5.7%)存活至出院(95%) CI,3.0%-9.3%)。在手动CPR和LDB-CPR组中幸存到出院的患者中,脑性能类别(P = .36)或整体表现类别(P = .40)在各组之间没有显着差异。调整后的预后生存至出院所需治疗的人数为15(95%CI,9-33)。结论:与使用手动心肺复苏术进行复苏相比,使用LDB-CPR对EMS救护车进行复苏的策略与改善院外非创伤性心脏骤停的成年人出院生存率相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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