首页> 外文期刊>Resuscitation. >Time-dependent effectiveness of chest compression-only and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin.
【24h】

Time-dependent effectiveness of chest compression-only and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin.

机译:仅胸部按压和常规心肺复苏对因心脏原因导致的院外心脏骤停具有时间依赖性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of the type of bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for prolonged out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the time-dependent effectiveness of chest compression-only and conventional CPR with rescue breathing for witnessed adult OHCA of cardiac origin. METHODS: A nationwide, prospective, population-based, observational study of the whole population of Japan included consecutive OHCA patients with emergency responder resuscitation attempts from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2007. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the contribution of the bystander-initiated CPR technique to favourable neurological outcomes. RESULTS: Among 55014 bystander-witnessed OHCA of cardiac origin, 12165 (22.1%) received chest compression-only CPR and 10851 (19.7%) received conventional CPR. For short-duration OHCA (0-15min after collapse), compression-only CPR had a higher rate of survival with favourable neurological outcome than no CPR (6.4% vs. 3.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38-1.74), and conventional CPR showed similar effectiveness (7.1% vs. 3.8%; adjusted OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.58-2.01). For the long-duration arrests (>15min), conventional CPR showed a significantly higher rate of survival with favourable neurological outcome than both no CPR (2.0% vs. 0.7%; adjusted OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.27-2.93) and compression-only CPR (2.0% vs. 1.3%; adjusted OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44). CONCLUSIONS: For prolonged OHCA of cardiac origin, conventional CPR with rescue breathing provided incremental benefit compared with either no CPR or compression-only CPR, but the absolute survival was low regardless of type of CPR.
机译:背景:知情人士发起的心肺复苏(CPR)对于延长院外心脏骤停(OHCA)的影响知之甚少。目的:评估仅胸部按压和常规心肺复苏及抢救呼吸对心脏起源的成人OHCA的时间依赖性有效性。方法:2005年1月1日至2007年12月31日,在日本全国范围内进行的一项以人口为基础的全国性前瞻性观察性研究,包括连续的OHCA患者进行急救复苏的尝试。进行了多因素logistic回归分析以评估旁观者的贡献发起的心肺复苏术可取得良好的神经功能。结果:在55014名来自心脏的旁观者OHCA中,有12165名(22.1%)接受了仅胸外按压的心肺复苏术,而10851名(19.7%)接受了常规CPR。对于短时OHCA(崩溃后0-15分钟),仅加压CPR的存活率更高,神经系统的预后要好于无CPR(6.4%vs. 3.8%;校正比值比(OR)为1.55; 95%置信度)间隔(CI)为1.38-1.74)和常规CPR表现出相似的有效性(7.1%vs.3.8%;调整后OR为1.78; 95%CI为1.58-2.01)。对于长时间的停搏(> 15分钟),传统的CPR与无CPR相比,具有良好的神经学预后生存率显着更高(2.0%比0.7%;校正后的OR,1.93; 95%CI,1.27-2.93)和仅压缩CPR(2.0%比1.3%;调整后的OR为1.56; 95%CI为1.02-2.44)。结论:对于长时间的心脏源性OHCA,与无CPR或仅加压CPR相比,常规CPR抢救呼吸可提供增加的获益,但无论CPR类型如何,绝对生存率均较低。

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