首页> 外文期刊>Circulation: An Official Journal of the American Heart Association >Survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest After Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation or Chest Compressions Only Before Arrival of Emergency Medical Services Nationwide Study During Three Guideline Periods
【24h】

Survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest After Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation or Chest Compressions Only Before Arrival of Emergency Medical Services Nationwide Study During Three Guideline Periods

机译:仅在三个指南期间在全国紧急医疗服务到达之前,在标准心肺复苏或胸部按压后存活医院外卡骤停。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: In out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CO-CPR) has emerged as an alternative to standard CPR (S-CPR), using both chest compressions and rescue breaths. Since 2010, CPR guidelines recommend CO-CPR for both untrained bystanders and trained bystanders unwilling to perform rescue breaths. The aim of this study was to describe changes in the rate and type of CPR performed before the arrival of emergency medical services (EMS) during 3 consecutive guideline periods in correlation to 30-day survival. METHODS: All bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests reported to the Swedish register for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 2000 to 2017 were included. Nonwitnessed, EMS-witnessed, and rescue breathonly CPR cases were excluded. Patients were categorized as receivers of no CPR (NO-CPR), S-CPR, or CO-CPR before EMS arrival. Guideline periods 2000 to 2005, 2006 to 2010, and 2011 to 2017 were used for comparisons over time. The primary outcome was 30-day survival. RESULTS: A total of 30 445 patients were included. The proportions of patients receiving CPR before EMS arrival changed from 40.8% in the first time period to 58.8% in the second period, and to 68.2% in the last period. S-CPR changed from 35.4% to 44.8% to 38.1%, and CO-CPR changed from 5.4% to 14.0% to 30.1%, respectively. Thirty-day survival changed from 3.9% to 6.0% to 7.1% in the NO-CPR group, from 9.4% to 12.5% to 16.2% in the S-CPR group, and from 8.0% to 11.5% to 14.3% in the CO-CPR group. For all time periods combined, the adjusted odds ratio for 30-day survival was 2.6 (95% CI, 2.4-2.9) for S-CPR and 2.0 (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) for CO-CPR, in comparison with NO-CPR. S-CPR was superior to CO-CPR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during 3 periods of different CPR guidelines, there was an almost a 2-fold higher rate of CPR before EMS arrival and a concomitant 6-fold higher rate of CO-CPR over time. Any type of CPR was associated with doubled survival rates in comparison with NO-CPR. These findings support continuous endorsement of CO-CPR as an option in future CPR guidelines because it is associated with higher CPR rates and overall survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
机译:背景:在医院外心脏骤停中,胸部压缩的心肺复苏(CO-CPR)已成为标准CPR(S-CPR)的替代品,使用胸部按压和抢救呼吸。自2010年以来,CPR指南推荐为未训练的旁观者和训练有素的旁观者不愿意进行救援呼吸的CO-CPR。本研究的目的是描述在3个连续准则期间在与30天生存期间的3个连续准则期间进行的CPR率和类型的变化。方法:包括向瑞典语留下的医院内心脏逮捕,报告给瑞典语报告到2017年的瑞典威严的复苏寄存。不适当,EMS-见证,并拯救惊人的CPR病例被排除在外。在EMS到达之前,患者被归类为NO CPR(NO-CPR),S-CPR或CPR的接收者。 2000年至2005年,2006年至2010年和2011年至2017年的指南期用于比较随着时间的推移。主要结果是30天存活。结果:共有30名445名患者。在EMS到达之前接受CPR的患者的比例从第一次在第二个时间内的40.8%变为58.8%,而最后一段时间的68.2%。 S-CPR从35.4%变为44.8%至38.1%,并且CPR分别从5.4%变为14.0%至30.1%。 39天的生存率从NO-CPR组的3.9%降至6.0%至7.1%,从S-CPR集团的9.4%达到12.5%至16.2%,达到了8.0%至11.5%至14.3% -CPR组。对于所有时间段组合,S-CPR和2.0(95%CI,1.8-2.3)的调整后的次数存活率为2.6(95%CI,2.4-2.9),与NO-CPR相比-CPR。 S-CPR优于CPR(调节的差距,1.2; 95%CI,1.1-1.4)。结论:在全国范围内研究了在3个不同CPR指南的3期内外心脏骤停的研究中,EMS到达之前的CPR率几乎高出了2倍,伴随着6倍的CPR率结合时间。与NO -CPR相比,任何类型的CPR都与加倍的存活率相关。这些调查结果支持持续认可的CPR作为未来CPR指南的选项,因为它与较高的CPR率和医院外心脏骤停的整体存活相关。

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