Iwami Taku, Kawamura Takashi, Hiraide Atsushi, Berg Robert A, Hayashi Yasuyuki, Nishiuchi Tatsuya, Kajino Kentaro, Yonemoto Naohiro, Yukioka Hidekazu, Sugimoto Hisashi, Kakuchi Hiroyuki, Sase Kazuhiro, Yokoyama Hiroyuki, Nonogi Hiroshi
Division of Cardiology, National Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Japan.
Circulation. 2007 Dec 18;116(25):2900-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.723411. Epub 2007 Dec 10.
Previous animal and clinical studies suggest that bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation may be superior to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Our hypothesis was that both cardiac-only bystander resuscitation and conventional bystander CPR would improve outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of < or = 15 minutes' duration, whereas the addition of rescue breathing would improve outcomes for cardiac arrests lasting > 15 minutes.
We carried out a prospective, population-based, observational study involving consecutive patients with emergency responder resuscitation attempts from May 1, 1998, through April 30, 2003. The primary outcome measure was 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between type of CPR and outcomes. Among the 4902 witnessed cardiac arrests, 783 received conventional CPR, and 544 received cardiac-only resuscitation. Excluding very-long-duration cardiac arrests (> 15 minutes), the cardiac-only resuscitation yielded a higher rate of 1-year survival with favorable neurological outcome than no bystander CPR (4.3% versus 2.5%; odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.95), and conventional CPR showed similar effectiveness (4.1%; odds ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.60). For the very-long-duration arrests, neurologically favorable 1-year survival was greater in the conventional CPR group, but there were few survivors regardless of the type of bystander CPR (0.3% [2 of 624], 0% [0 of 92], and 2.2% [3 of 139] in the no bystander CPR, cardiac-only CPR, and conventional CPR groups, respectively; P<0.05).
Bystander-initiated cardiac-only resuscitation and conventional CPR are similarly effective for most adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. For very prolonged cardiac arrests, the addition of rescue breathing may be of some help.
先前的动物和临床研究表明,对于院外心脏骤停,旁观者实施的单纯胸外按压心肺复苏术可能优于传统的心肺复苏术(CPR)。我们的假设是,旁观者实施的单纯胸外按压复苏术和传统的旁观者心肺复苏术均可改善持续时间≤15分钟的院外心脏骤停的预后,而对于持续时间>15分钟的心脏骤停,增加人工呼吸可改善预后。
我们进行了一项基于人群的前瞻性观察性研究,纳入了1998年5月1日至2003年4月30日期间接受急救人员复苏尝试的连续患者。主要结局指标为1年存活且神经功能良好。采用多变量逻辑回归分析来评估心肺复苏类型与预后之间的关系。在4902例目击心脏骤停患者中,783例接受了传统心肺复苏术,544例接受了单纯胸外按压复苏术。排除持续时间极长的心脏骤停(>15分钟),单纯胸外按压复苏术导致1年存活且神经功能良好的比例高于无旁观者心肺复苏术(4.3%对2.5%;优势比,1.72;95%CI,1.01至2.95),传统心肺复苏术显示出相似的有效性(4.1%;优势比,1.57;95%CI,0.95至2.60)。对于持续时间极长的心脏骤停,传统心肺复苏术组1年存活且神经功能良好的比例更高,但无论旁观者心肺复苏术的类型如何,存活者都很少(无旁观者心肺复苏术组、单纯胸外按压心肺复苏术组和传统心肺复苏术组分别为0.3%[624例中的2例]、0%[92例中的0例]和2.2%[139例中的3例];P<0.05)。
对于大多数成人院外心脏骤停,旁观者实施的单纯胸外按压复苏术和传统心肺复苏术同样有效。对于持续时间极长的心脏骤停,增加人工呼吸可能会有所帮助。