Hallstrom A, Cobb L, Johnson E, Copass M
Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, and Medic I, Seattle, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 25;342(21):1546-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005253422101.
Despite extensive training of citizens of Seattle in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), bystanders do not perform CPR in almost half of witnessed cardiac arrests. Instructions in chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation given by dispatchers over the telephone can require 2.4 minutes. In experimental studies, chest compression alone is associated with survival rates similar to those with chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. We conducted a randomized study to compare CPR by chest compression alone with CPR by chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation.
The setting of the trial was an urban, fire-department-based, emergency-medical-care system with central dispatching. In a randomized manner, telephone dispatchers gave bystanders at the scene of apparent cardiac arrest instructions in either chest compression alone or chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. The primary end point was survival to hospital discharge.
Data were analyzed for 241 patients randomly assigned to receive chest compression alone and 279 assigned to chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. Complete instructions were delivered in 62 percent of episodes for the group receiving chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation and 81 percent of episodes for the group receiving chest compression alone (P=0.005). Instructions for compression required 1.4 minutes less to complete than instructions for compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation. Survival to hospital discharge was better among patients assigned to chest compression alone than among those assigned to chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation (14.6 percent vs. 10.4 percent), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.18).
The outcome after CPR with chest compression alone is similar to that after chest compression with mouth-to-mouth ventilation, and chest compression alone may be the preferred approach for bystanders inexperienced in CPR.
尽管西雅图市民接受了广泛的心肺复苏术(CPR)培训,但在近半数目睹的心脏骤停事件中,旁观者并未实施心肺复苏。调度员通过电话给出的胸外按压加口对口通气的指导需要2.4分钟。在实验研究中,单纯胸外按压与胸外按压加口对口通气的存活率相似。我们进行了一项随机研究,比较单纯胸外按压心肺复苏与胸外按压加口对口通气心肺复苏的效果。
试验在一个基于城市消防部门的、有中央调度的紧急医疗护理系统中进行。电话调度员以随机方式向疑似心脏骤停现场的旁观者给出单纯胸外按压或胸外按压加口对口通气的指导。主要终点是存活至出院。
对随机分配接受单纯胸外按压的241例患者和分配接受胸外按压加口对口通气的279例患者的数据进行了分析。接受胸外按压加口对口通气组62%的事件以及接受单纯胸外按压组81%的事件中完整指导得以传达(P=0.005)。按压指导完成所需时间比按压加口对口通气指导少1.4分钟。分配接受单纯胸外按压的患者存活至出院的情况优于分配接受胸外按压加口对口通气的患者(14.6%对10.4%),但差异无统计学意义(P=0.18)。
单纯胸外按压心肺复苏的结果与胸外按压加口对口通气心肺复苏的结果相似,对于无CPR经验的旁观者,单纯胸外按压可能是更可取的方法。