...
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:胸部压缩的CPR由救援人员和医院外心脏骤停的生存。

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:背景信息:仅胸部压缩旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)可以与常规CPR一样有效,抢救呼吸呼吸呼吸呼吸障碍。目的:使用常规CPR相比,探讨仅使用压缩CPR(COCPR)的医院外逮捕患者的存活。设计,环境和患者:5年期前瞻性观察队队在亚利桑那州1月1日至2009年12月31日之间存在至少18岁的患者存活率。利用多变量逻辑回归评估劳兹尼旁边CPR与医院放电的生存之间的关系。主要成果措施:向医院排放的生存。结果:在5272名成年人中,通过应对应急医务人员未观察到的医院内心脏病,779被排除在外,因为旁观者CPR由医疗保健专业人员提供或在医疗设施中发生逮捕。共有4415次符合所有纳入标准的分析标准,包括2900岁,谁收到了没有接受常规CPR的旁观者CPR,666人,以及849人获得CoCPR。医院出院的生存率为无旁观者CPR组的5.2%(置信区间,4.4%-6.0%,4.4%-6.0%),常规CPR为7.8%(95%CI,5.8%-9.8%),13.3 COCPR%(95%CI,11.0%-15.6%)。用于常规CPR VS的调整后的差距(AOR)对于常规CPR VS NO CPR为0.99(95%CI,0.69-1.43),用于COCPR与CPR,1.59(95%CI,1.18-2.13)和CoCPR常规CPR ,1.60(95%CI,1.08-2.35)。从2005年到2009年,Lay救援人员CPR从28.2%(95%CI,24.6%-31.8%)增加到39.9%(95%CI,36.8%-42.9%; P <.001); CPR的CPR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:患有医院外心脏骤停的患者,与常规CPR的常规CPR和NO旁观者CPR相比,幼儿压缩CPR与患有胸部压缩的公共认可的CPR增加,才与旁观者CPR增加相关。

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