...
首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Chest compression-only CPR by lay rescuers and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
【24h】

Chest compression-only CPR by lay rescuers and survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

机译:非专业施救者仅进行胸部按压即可进行心肺复苏,并能从院外心脏骤停中存活。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

CONTEXT: Chest compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may be as effective as conventional CPR with rescue breathing for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using compression-only CPR (COCPR) compared with conventional CPR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A 5-year prospective observational cohort study of survival in patients at least 18 years old with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009, in Arizona. The relationship between layperson bystander CPR and survival to hospital discharge was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 5272 adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac etiology not observed by responding emergency medical personnel, 779 were excluded because bystander CPR was provided by a health care professional or the arrest occurred in a medical facility. A total of 4415 met all inclusion criteria for analysis, including 2900 who received no bystander CPR, 666 who received conventional CPR, and 849 who received COCPR. Rates of survival to hospital discharge were 5.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4%-6.0%) for the no bystander CPR group, 7.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-9.8%) for conventional CPR, and 13.3% (95% CI, 11.0%-15.6%) for COCPR. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for survival for conventional CPR vs no CPR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.69-1.43), for COCPR vs no CPR, 1.59 (95% CI, 1.18-2.13), and for COCPR vs conventional CPR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.08-2.35). From 2005 to 2009, lay rescuer CPR increased from 28.2% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.8%) to 39.9% (95% CI, 36.8%-42.9%; P < .001); the proportion of CPR that was COCPR increased from 19.6% (95% CI, 13.6%-25.7%) to 75.9% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.1%; P < .001). Overall survival increased from 3.7% (95% CI, 2.2%-5.2%) to 9.8% (95% CI, 8.0%-11.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, layperson compression-only CPR was associated with increased survival compared with conventional CPR and no bystander CPR in this setting with public endorsement of chest compression-only CPR.
机译:背景:仅胸外按压的旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)可能与常规CPR抢救呼吸对院外心脏骤停一样有效。目的:通过单纯加压CPR(COCPR)与常规CPR相比,研究院外心脏骤停患者的生存率。设计,地点和患者:一项为期5年的前瞻性观察性队列研究,研究了2005年1月1日至2009年12月31日期间在亚利桑那州至少18岁的院外心脏骤停患者的生存率。使用多因素logistic回归评估外行旁观者心肺复苏和生存至出院之间的关系。主要观察指标:存活至出院。结果:在5272名因急诊医务人员未发现心脏病因而在院外进行心脏骤停的成年人中,有779人被排除在外,因为旁观者的心肺复苏是由医疗保健专业人员提供的,或者是在医疗设施中发生的。共有4415个满足所有纳入标准的分析,包括2900个未获得旁观者CPR,666个获得常规CPR和849个获得COCPR。无旁观者CPR组的出院生存率分别为5.2%(95%置信区间[CI],4.4%-6.0%),常规CPR为7.8%(95%CI,5.8%-9.8%)和13.3。 %(95%CI,11.0%-15.6%)。常规CPR与无CPR生存率的调整比值比(AOR)为0.99(95%CI,0.69-1.43),COCPR与无CPR的生存率调整为1.59(95%CI,1.18-2.13),以及COCPR与常规CPR的生存率,1.60(95%CI,1.08-2.35)。从2005年到2009年,外行救援人员的心肺复苏率从28.2%(95%CI,24.6%-31.8%)增加到39.9%(95%CI,36.8%-42.9%; P <.001); CPR占COCPR的比例从19.6%(95%CI,13.6%-25.7%)增加到75.9%(95%CI,71.7%-80.1%; P <.001)。总体生存率从3.7%(95%CI,2.2%-5.2%)增加到9.8%(95%CI,8.0%-11.6%; P <.001)。结论:在院外心脏骤停的患者中,与常规CPR相比,非常规加压CPR与存活增加相关,在这种情况下,没有公众旁观纯CPR的情况下没有旁观者CPR。

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