Merchant Raina M, Soar Jasmeet, Skrifvars Markus B, Silfvast Tom, Edelson Dana P, Ahmad Fawaz, Huang Kuang-Ning, Khan Monica, Vanden Hoek Terry L, Becker Lance B, Abella Benjamin S
Section of Emergency Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2006 Jul;34(7):1935-40. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000220494.90290.92.
We sought to evaluate current physician use of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest, to ascertain reasons for nonadoption of this treatment, and to determine current cooling techniques employed.
Web-based survey.
International physician cohort in the United States, UK, and Finland.
Physicians (MD or DO) caring for resuscitated cardiac arrest patients.
An anonymous Web-based survey was distributed to physicians identified through United States-based critical care, cardiology, and emergency medicine directories and critical care networks in the UK and Finland. Recipients were queried regarding use of postresuscitation therapeutic hypothermia.
Of the final 13,272 surveys actually distributed to physicians, 2,248 (17%) were completed. Most respondents were attending physicians (82%) at teaching hospitals (76%) who practiced critical care (35%), cardiology (20%), or emergency medicine (22%). Of all replies, 74% of United States respondents and 64% of non-United States respondents had never used therapeutic hypothermia. United States emergency medicine physician adoption of cooling was significantly less than that of United States intensivists (16% vs. 34%, p < .05). The most often cited reasons for nonuse by respondents were "not enough data," "not part of Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines," and "too technically difficult to use." Factors associated with increased use included non-United States residence, critical care specialty, and larger hospital size.
Physician utilization of cooling after cardiac arrest remains low. For improved adoption of therapeutic hypothermia, our data suggest that development of better cooling methodology and recent incorporation into resuscitation guidelines may improve use.
我们旨在评估目前医生在心脏骤停后使用治疗性低温的情况,确定不采用这种治疗方法的原因,并确定当前所采用的降温技术。
基于网络的调查。
美国、英国和芬兰的国际医生队列。
照料复苏后心脏骤停患者的医生(医学博士或医学博士学位)。
通过美国的重症监护、心脏病学和急诊医学名录以及英国和芬兰的重症监护网络确定医生,并向他们发放一份基于网络的匿名调查问卷。询问受访者关于复苏后治疗性低温的使用情况。
在实际分发给医生的13272份最终调查问卷中,2248份(17%)被完成。大多数受访者是教学医院(76%)的主治医生(82%),他们从事重症监护(35%)、心脏病学(20%)或急诊医学(22%)。在所有回复中,74%的美国受访者和64%的非美国受访者从未使用过治疗性低温。美国急诊医学医生采用降温治疗的比例明显低于美国重症监护医生(16%对34%,p<.05)。受访者最常提到的不使用原因是“数据不足”、“不是高级心脏生命支持指南的一部分”以及“技术上太难使用”。与使用增加相关的因素包括非美国居住、重症监护专业和医院规模较大。
心脏骤停后医生使用降温治疗的比例仍然较低。为了提高治疗性低温的采用率,我们的数据表明,开发更好的降温方法并将其近期纳入复苏指南可能会改善使用情况。