Suppr超能文献

对配备除颤器的紧急医疗服务对院外心脏骤停患者有效性的累积荟萃分析。

A cumulative meta-analysis of the effectiveness of defibrillator-capable emergency medical services for victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

作者信息

Nichol G, Stiell I G, Laupacis A, Pham B, De Maio V J, Wells G A

机构信息

Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Loeb Health Research Institute, Division of General Internal Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 1999 Oct;34(4 Pt 1):517-25.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

More than 1,000 patients experience sudden cardiac arrest each day. Treatment for this includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency medical services (EMS) that provide CPR-basic life support (BLS), BLS with defibrillation (BLS-D), or advanced life support (ALS). Our previous systematic review of treatments for sudden cardiac arrest was limited by suboptimal data. Since then, debate has increased about whether bystander CPR is effective or whether attention should focus instead on rapid defibrillation. Therefore a cumulative meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of differences in the defibrillation response time interval, proportion of bystander CPR, and type of EMS system on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed by using a priori exclusion criteria. We considered EMS systems that provided BLS-D, ALS, BLS plus ALS, or BLS-D plus ALS care. A generalized linear model was used with dispersion estimation for random effects.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven eligible articles described 39 EMS systems and included 33,124 patients. Median survival for all rhythm groups to hospital discharge was 6.4% (interquartile range, 3.7 to 10.3). Odds of survival were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.09; P <.01) per 5% increase in bystander CPR. Survival was constant if the defibrillation response time interval was less than 6 minutes, decreased as the interval increased from 6 to 11 minutes, and leveled off after 11 minutes (P <.01). Compared with BLS-D, odds of survival were as follows: ALS, 1. 71 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.70; P =.01); BLS plus ALS, 1.47 (95% CI, 0.89 to 2.42; P =.07); and BLS with defibrillation plus ALS, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.62; P <.01.)

CONCLUSION

We confirm that greater survival after sudden cardiac arrest is associated with provision of bystander CPR, early defibrillation, or ALS. More research is required to evaluate the relative benefit of early defibrillation versus early ALS.

摘要

研究目的

每天有超过1000名患者发生心脏骤停。其治疗措施包括心肺复苏(CPR)以及提供基础生命支持(BLS)的紧急医疗服务(EMS)、带除颤的基础生命支持(BLS-D)或高级生命支持(ALS)。我们之前对心脏骤停治疗方法的系统评价受到数据欠佳的限制。从那时起,关于旁观者实施的心肺复苏是否有效,或者注意力是否应转而集中在快速除颤上的争论日益增多。因此,进行了一项累积荟萃分析,以确定除颤反应时间间隔差异、旁观者心肺复苏比例以及院外心脏骤停后生存时EMS系统类型的相对有效性。

方法

采用预先设定的排除标准进行全面的文献检索。我们纳入了提供BLS-D、ALS、BLS加ALS或BLS-D加ALS护理的EMS系统。使用广义线性模型并进行随机效应的离散估计。

结果

37篇符合条件的文章描述了39个EMS系统,纳入了33124例患者。所有心律组至出院时的中位生存率为6.4%(四分位间距,3.7%至10.3%)。旁观者心肺复苏每增加5%,生存几率为1.06(95%置信区间[CI],1.03至1.09;P<.01)。如果除颤反应时间间隔小于6分钟,生存率保持不变;当间隔从6分钟增加到11分钟时,生存率下降;11分钟后趋于平稳(P<.01)。与BLS-D相比,生存几率如下:ALS为1.71(95%CI,1.09至2.70;P=.01);BLS加ALS为1.47(95%CI,0.89至2.42;P=.07);带除颤的BLS加ALS为2.31(95%CI,1.47至3.62;P<.01)。

结论

我们证实,心脏骤停后更高的生存率与旁观者实施的心肺复苏、早期除颤或ALS相关。需要更多研究来评估早期除颤与早期ALS的相对益处。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验