Suppr超能文献

两种院前护理模式对重度颅脑损伤患者预后的影响。

Effects of 2 patterns of prehospital care on the outcome of patients with severe head injury.

作者信息

Di Bartolomeo S, Sanson G, Nardi G, Scian F, Michelutto V, Lattuada L

机构信息

Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Helicopter Medical Service, Udine, Italy.

出版信息

Arch Surg. 2001 Nov;136(11):1293-300. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.136.11.1293.

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS

A pattern of prehospital care combining advanced life support, physician staffing, and helicopter transport improves the outcome of patients with severe brain injuries, compared with combined expanded basic life support, nurse staffing, and ground transport.

DESIGN

Inception cohort from the data set of a population-based, prospective study on major trauma.

SETTING

Prehospital and hospital trauma systems of an Italian region.

PATIENTS

All patients with major trauma (Injury Severity Score, >or=16) and severe head injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale score for the head, >or=4) rescued alive from March 1, 1998, to February 28, 1999, who received either form of care. Patients with self-inflicted injuries were excluded. The 184 patients who met the entry criteria were divided equally between care groups.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality at 30 days and Glasgow Outcome Scale score of survivors.

RESULTS

After verifying the comparability of the cohorts, no survival or disability benefit could be demonstrated (95% confidence interval [CI] of the odds ratio for mortality [helicopter/ambulance] [95% CI 1], 0.72 to 2.67; 95% CI of the difference in Glasgow Outcome Scale score medians between helicopter and ambulance groups [95% CI 2], 0.0 to 0.0). Similar results were derived from analyses restricted to the subgroups identified by low (<or=90 mm Hg) roadside systolic blood pressure (95% CI 1, 0.58 to 7.17; 95% CI 2, -1 to 2) and by need for urgent neurosurgical intervention (95% CI 1, 0.16 to 2.60; 95% CI 2, 0 to 2). Exclusion from the ambulance group of victims rescued in urban areas did not change the results (95% CI 1, 0.80 to 3.24; 95% CI 2, 0.0 to 0.0). Stratification by age, Injury Severity Score, and Glasgow Coma Scale score demonstrated a small survival benefit (95% CI 1, 1.12 to 2.12) in the ambulance subgroup with Glasgow Coma Scale score from 10 to 12. Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed that the group did not affect mortality.

CONCLUSION

This study was conceived to emphasize the supposed advantages of the combined helicopter, physician, and advanced life-support rescue. No increased benefit compared with the simpler rescue group could be demonstrated.

摘要

假设

与联合强化基础生命支持、护士配备和地面转运相比,将高级生命支持、医生配备和直升机转运相结合的院前护理模式可改善重型脑损伤患者的预后。

设计

基于一项针对重大创伤的人群前瞻性研究数据集的起始队列研究。

地点

意大利某地区的院前和医院创伤系统。

患者

1998年3月1日至1999年2月28日期间所有从重大创伤(损伤严重度评分≥16)和严重头部损伤(头部简明损伤定级评分≥4)中获救的患者,且接受了上述任何一种护理形式。自残伤者被排除。符合入选标准的184例患者被平均分为两个护理组。

干预措施

无。

主要观察指标

30天死亡率及幸存者的格拉斯哥预后评分。

结果

在验证队列的可比性后,未发现生存率或残疾方面的获益(死亡率优势比的95%置信区间[直升机/救护车][95% CI 1],0.72至2.67;直升机组与救护车组格拉斯哥预后评分中位数差值的95%置信区间[95% CI 2],0.0至0.0)。对收缩压低(≤90 mmHg)的路边患者亚组以及需要紧急神经外科干预的患者亚组进行分析,也得出了类似结果(95% CI 1,0.58至7.17;95% CI 2,-1至2;95% CI 1,0.16至2.60;95% CI 2,0至2)。将城市地区获救的受害者从救护车组中排除,结果并未改变(95% CI 1,0.80至3.24;95% CI 2,0.0至0.0)。按年龄、损伤严重度评分和格拉斯哥昏迷评分分层显示,格拉斯哥昏迷评分为10至12的救护车亚组有微小的生存获益(95% CI 1,1.12至2.12)。多因素logistic回归分析证实分组不影响死亡率。

结论

本研究旨在强调直升机、医生和高级生命支持联合救援的假定优势。但与更简单的救援组相比,未发现有更大获益。

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