...
首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Analysis of amplitude spectral area and slope to predict defibrillation in out of hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) according to VF type: Recurrent versus shock-resistant
【24h】

Analysis of amplitude spectral area and slope to predict defibrillation in out of hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) according to VF type: Recurrent versus shock-resistant

机译:根据VF类型分析幅度频谱面积和斜率以预测因室颤(VF)导致的院外心脏骤停的除颤:复发性与抗冲击性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: In out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) due to ventricular fibrillation (VF), VF may recur during resuscitation (recurrent VF) or fail to defibrillate (shock-resistant VF). While retrospective studies have suggested that amplitude spectral area (AMSA) and slope predict defibrillation, it is unknown whether the predictive power is influenced by VF type. We hypothesized that in witnessed OHCA with initial rhythm of VF that the utility for AMSA and slope to predict defibrillation would differ between shock-resistant and recurrent VF. Methods: AMSA and slope were measured immediately prior to each shock. For second or later shocks, VF was classified as recurrent or shock-resistant. Cardiac arrest was classified according to whether the majority of shocks were for recurrent VF or shock-resistant VF. Results: 44 patients received 98 shocks for recurrent VF and 96 shocks for shock-resistant VF; 24 patients achieved ROSC in the field. AMSA and slope were higher in recurrent VF compared to shock-resistant VF (AMSA: 28.8±13.1 vs 15.2±8.6mVHz, P0.001, and slope: 2.9±1.4 vs 1.4±1.0mVs -1, P=0.001). Recurrent VF was more likely to defibrillate than shock-resistant VF (P0.001). AMSA and slope predicted defibrillation in shock-resistant VF (P0.001 for both AMSA and slope) but not in recurrent VF. Recurrent VF predominated in 79% of patients that achieved ROSC compared to 55% that did not (P=0.10). Conclusions: In witnessed OHCA with VF as initial rhythm, recurrent VF is associated with higher values of AMSA and slope and is likely to re-defibrillate. However, when VF is shock-resistant, AMSA and slope are highly predictive of defibrillation.
机译:背景:在因心室纤颤(VF)导致的院外心脏骤停(OHCA)中,VF可能在复苏过程中复发(反复发生VF)或无法除颤(抗震性VF)。尽管回顾性研究表明,振幅频谱面积(AMSA)和斜率可预测除颤,但尚不清楚预测能力是否受VF类型影响。我们假设,在目睹的OHCA伴有VF的初始节律的情况下,抗冲击性VF和复发性VF在AMSA和斜率预测除颤方面的效用会有所不同。方法:在每次电击前立即测量AMSA和斜率。对于第二次或以后的电击,VF被分类为反复发作或抗电击。根据大多数电击是复发性VF还是抗电击性VF对心脏骤停进行分类。结果:44例患者因复发性VF接受了98次电击,而抗冲击性VF接受了96次电击; 24例患者在该领域达到了ROSC。复发性VF的AMSA和斜率高于耐冲击VF(AMSA:28.8±13.1 vs 15.2±8.6mVHz,P <0.001,斜率:2.9±1.4 vs 1.4±1.0mVs -1,P = 0.001)。复发性VF比抗震性VF更容易除颤(P <0.001)。抗冲击性VF的AMSA和斜率可预测除颤(对于AMSA和斜率而言,P <0.001),而复发性VF则不。复发性室颤在获得ROSC的患者中占79%,而未达到ROSC的患者占55%(P = 0.10)。结论:在以VF为初始节律的OHCA证人中,复发性VF与较高的AMSA和斜率值相关,并且很可能会重新除颤。但是,当VF耐冲击时,AMSA和斜率可高度预测除颤。

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