Suppr超能文献

院外心脏骤停时标准心肺复苏与主动按压-减压心肺复苏联合吸气阻抗阈值装置的比较。

Comparison of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus the combination of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an inspiratory impedance threshold device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

作者信息

Wolcke Benno B, Mauer Dietmar K, Schoefmann Mark F, Teichmann Heinke, Provo Terry A, Lindner Karl H, Dick Wolfgang F, Aeppli Dorothee, Lurie Keith G

机构信息

the Johannes Gutenberg University Medical School, Clinic of Anesthesiology, Mainz, Germany.

出版信息

Circulation. 2003 Nov 4;108(18):2201-5. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095787.99180.B5. Epub 2003 Oct 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR combined with an inspiratory impedance threshold device (ITD) improves vital organ blood flow during cardiac arrest. This study compared survival rates with ACD+ITD CPR versus standard manual CPR (S-CPR).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, controlled trial was performed in Mainz, Germany, in which a 2-tiered emergency response included early defibrillation. Patients with out-of-hospital arrest of presumed cardiac pathogenesis were sequentially randomized to ACD+ITD CPR or S-CPR by the advanced life support team after intubation. Rescuers learned which method of CPR to use at the start of each work shift. The primary end point was 1-hour survival after a witnessed arrest. With ACD+ITD CPR (n=103), return of spontaneous circulation and 1- and 24-hour survival rates were 55%, 51%, and 37% versus 37%, 32%, and 22% with S-CPR (n=107) (P=0.016, 0.006, and 0.033, respectively). One- and 24-hour survival rates in witnessed arrests were 55% and 41% with ACD+ITD CPR versus 33% and 23% in control subjects (P=0.011 and 0.019), respectively. One- and 24-hour survival rates in patients with a witnessed arrest in ventricular fibrillation were 68% and 58% after ACD+ITD CPR versus 27% and 23% after S-CPR (P=0.002 and 0.009), respectively. Patients randomized > or =10 minutes after the call for help to the ACD+ITD CPR had a 3 times higher 1-hour survival rate than control subjects (P=0.002). Hospital discharge rates were 18% after ACD+ITD CPR versus 13% in control subjects (P=0.41). In witnessed arrests, overall neurological function trended higher with ACD+ITD CPR versus control subjects (P=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with S-CPR, ACD+ITD CPR significantly improved short-term survival rates for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Additional studies are needed to evaluate potential long-term benefits of ACD+ITD CPR.

摘要

背景

主动按压-减压(ACD)心肺复苏术联合吸气阻抗阈值装置(ITD)可改善心脏骤停期间重要器官的血流。本研究比较了ACD+ITD心肺复苏术与标准徒手心肺复苏术(S-CPR)的生存率。

方法与结果

在德国美因茨进行了一项前瞻性对照试验,其中两级应急响应包括早期除颤。院外疑似心脏病因导致心脏骤停的患者在插管后由高级生命支持团队依次随机分为ACD+ITD心肺复苏术组或S-CPR组。救援人员在每个工作班次开始时了解使用哪种心肺复苏方法。主要终点是目击心脏骤停后1小时的生存率。采用ACD+ITD心肺复苏术(n=103)时,自主循环恢复率以及1小时和24小时生存率分别为55%、51%和37%,而采用S-CPR(n=107)时分别为37%、32%和22%(P分别为0.016、0.006和0.033)。在目击心脏骤停中,采用ACD+ITD心肺复苏术时1小时和24小时生存率分别为55%和41%,而对照组分别为33%和23%(P分别为0.011和0.019)。在目击心室颤动心脏骤停的患者中,采用ACD+ITD心肺复苏术后1小时和24小时生存率分别为68%和58%,而采用S-CPR后分别为27%和23%(P分别为0.002和0.009)。在求救呼叫后≥10分钟随机分组接受ACD+ITD心肺复苏术的患者1小时生存率比对照组高3倍(P=0.002)。采用ACD+ITD心肺复苏术后的出院率为18%,而对照组为13%(P=0.41)。在目击心脏骤停中,与对照组相比,采用ACD+ITD心肺复苏术时总体神经功能有升高趋势(P=0.07)。

结论

与S-CPR相比,ACD+ITD心肺复苏术显著提高了院外心脏骤停患者的短期生存率。需要进一步研究来评估ACD+ITD心肺复苏术潜在的长期益处。

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