首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a pilot study.
【24h】

Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a pilot study.

机译:EMS系统中采用机械式胸部按压治疗院外心脏骤停的临床后果-一项先导研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

AIM: To evaluate the outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after the introduction of mechanical chest compression (MCC) compared with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) in two emergency medical service (EMS) systems. METHODS: The inclusion criterion was witnessed OHCA. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, the following judged etiologies behind OHCA: trauma, pregnancy, hypothermia, intoxication, hanging and drowning or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to the arrival of the advanced life support (ALS) unit. Two MCC devices were allocated during six-month periods between four ALS units for a period of two years (cluster randomisation). RESULTS: In all, 328 patients fulfilled the criteria for participation and 159 were allocated to the MCC tier (the device was used in 66% of cases) and 169 to the SCPR tier. In the MCC tier, 51% had ROSC (primary end-point) versus 51% in the SCPR tier. The corresponding values for hospital admission alive(secondary end-point) were 38% and 37% (NS). In the subset of patients in whom the device was used, the percentage who had ROSC was 49% versus 50% in a control group matched for age, initial rhythm, aetiology, bystander-/crew-witnessed status and delay to CPR. The percentage of patients discharged alive from hospital after OHCA was 8% versus 10% (NS) for all patients and 2% versus 4%, respectively (NS) for the patients in the subset (where the device was used and the matched control population). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, the results did not support the hypothesis that the introduction of mechanical chest compression in OHCA improves outcome. However, there is room for further improvement in the use of the device. The hypothesis that this will improve outcome needs to be tested in further prospective trials.
机译:目的:为了评估在两个紧急医疗服务(EMS)系统中采用机械性胸部按压(MCC)与标准心肺复苏(SCPR)相比,在院外心脏骤停(OHCA)病人中的结局。方法:纳入标准是OHCA的见证。排除标准是年龄<18岁,是OHCA背后的以下经判断病因:创伤,妊娠,体温过低,中毒,吊死,溺水或自发性循环(ROSC)在到达高级生命支持(ALS)单元之前。在六个月的时间内,在四个ALS单元之间分配了两个MCC设备,为期两年(集群随机化)。结果:总共328例患者符合参与标准,其中159例被分配到MCC层(在66%的病例中使用该设备),而169例被分配到SCPR层。在MCC层中,有51%的人拥有ROSC(主要端点),而在SCPR层中有51%。活入院(次要终点)的相应值分别为38%和37%(NS)。在使用该设备的患者子集中,ROSC的百分比为49%,而对照组的年龄,初始节律,病因,旁观者/乘员证人状态和CPR延迟相匹配的对照组为50%。在所有患者中,使用OHCA后从医院存活的患者百分比分别为8%对10%(NS)和2%对4%(NS)(使用设备和相匹配的对照组) )。结论:在该初步研究中,结果不支持以下假设:在OHCA中采用机械式胸部按压可改善预后。但是,在使用该设备方面仍有进一步改进的空间。这种将改善预后的假设需要在进一步的前瞻性试验中进行检验。

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