Suppr超能文献

对院外心脏骤停患者进行除颤电击的心电图评估。

Electrocardiographic evaluation of defibrillation shocks delivered to out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest patients.

作者信息

Gliner B E, White R D

机构信息

HP Heartstream, Seattle, WA 98121, USA.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 1999 Jul;41(2):133-44. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(99)00040-4.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Following out-of-hospital defibrillation attempts, electrocardiographic instability challenges accurate assessment of defibrillation efficacy and post-shock rhythm. Presently, there is no precise definition of defibrillation efficacy in the out-of-hospital setting that is consistently used. The objective of this study was to characterize out-of-hospital cardiac arrest rhythms following low-energy biphasic and high-energy monophasic shocks in order to precisely define defibrillation efficacy and establish uniform criteria for the evaluation of shock performance.

METHODS

Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) delivering 150 J impedance-compensating biphasic or 200-360 J monophasic damped sine waveform shocks were observed in a combined police and paramedic program. ECGs from 29 biphasic patients and 87 monophasic patients were classified as organized, asystole or VF at post-shock times of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 60 s.

RESULTS

Post-shock time (P<0.0001) and shock waveform type (P = 0.02) affected the classification of post-shock rhythm. At each analysis time, there were more patients in VF following high-energy monophasic shocks than following 150 J biphasic shocks (P<0.0001). The percentage of patients in VF increased with post-shock time. The rate of VF recurrence was not a function of shock type, indicating that refibrillation is largely a function of the patient's underlying cardiac disease.

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation should uniformly be defined as termination of VF for a minimum of 5-s after shock delivery. Rhythms should be reported at 5-s after shock delivery to assess early effects of the defibrillation shock and at 60-s after shock delivery to assess the interaction of the defibrillation therapy and factors such as post-shock myocardial dysfunction and the patient's underlying cardiac disease.

摘要

目的

在院外除颤尝试后,心电图不稳定对准确评估除颤效果和电击后心律构成挑战。目前,院外环境下尚无一致使用的除颤效果的精确定义。本研究的目的是对低能量双相波和高能量单相波电击后的院外心脏骤停心律进行特征分析,以便精确界定除颤效果,并建立评估电击性能的统一标准。

方法

在一项警察与护理人员联合项目中,观察了能输送150 J阻抗补偿双相波或200 - 360 J单相减幅正弦波形电击的自动体外除颤器(AED)。对29例接受双相波电击患者和87例接受单相波电击患者的心电图,在电击后3、5、10、20和60秒时分类为有组织心律、心搏停止或室颤。

结果

电击后时间(P<0.0001)和电击波形类型(P = 0.02)影响电击后心律的分类。在每次分析时间点,接受高能量单相波电击后处于室颤的患者比接受150 J双相波电击后更多(P<0.0001)。处于室颤的患者百分比随电击后时间增加。室颤复发率不是电击类型的函数,这表明再次除颤很大程度上是患者潜在心脏病的函数。

结论

除颤应统一定义为电击后室颤终止至少5秒。应在电击后5秒报告心律,以评估除颤电击的早期效果;在电击后60秒报告心律,以评估除颤治疗与电击后心肌功能障碍及患者潜在心脏病等因素的相互作用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验