Bobrow Bentley J, Ewy Gordon A, Clark Lani, Chikani Vatsal, Berg Robert A, Sanders Arthur B, Vadeboncoeur Tyler F, Hilwig Ronald W, Kern Karl B
Arizona Department of Health Services Bureau of Emergency Medical Services and Trauma System, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Nov;54(5):656-662.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.06.011. Epub 2009 Aug 6.
Assisted ventilation may adversely affect out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. Passive ventilation offers an alternate method of oxygen delivery for these patients. We compare the adjusted neurologically intact survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving initial passive ventilation with those receiving initial bag-valve-mask ventilation.
The authors performed a retrospective analysis of statewide out-of-hospital cardiac arrests between January 1, 2005, and September 28, 2008. The analysis included consecutive adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving resuscitation with minimally interrupted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) consisting of uninterrupted preshock and postshock chest compressions, initial noninvasive airway maneuvers, and early epinephrine. Paramedics selected the method of initial noninvasive ventilation, consisting of either passive ventilation (oropharyngeal airway insertion and high-flow oxygen by nonrebreather facemask, without assisted ventilation) or bag-valve-mask ventilation (by paramedics at 8 breaths/min). The authors determined adjusted neurologically intact survival from hospital and public records and by telephone interview and mail questionnaire. The authors compared adjusted neurologically intact survival between ventilation techniques by using generalized estimating equations.
Among the 1,019 adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in the analysis, 459 received passive ventilation and 560 received bag-valve-mask ventilation. Adjusted neurologically intact survival after witnessed ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was higher for passive ventilation (39/102; 38.2%) than bag-valve-mask ventilation (31/120; 25.8%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 4.6). Survival between passive ventilation and bag-valve-mask ventilation was similar after unwitnessed ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (7.3% versus 13.8%; adjusted OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 1.6) and nonshockable rhythms (1.3% versus 3.7%; adjusted OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1 to 1.0).
Among adult, witnessed, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitated with minimally interrupted cardiac resuscitation, adjusted neurologically intact survival to hospital discharge was higher for individuals receiving initial passive ventilation than those receiving initial bag-valve-mask ventilation.
辅助通气可能会对院外心脏骤停的预后产生不利影响。被动通气为这些患者提供了一种替代的氧气输送方法。我们比较了接受初始被动通气的院外心脏骤停患者与接受初始球囊面罩通气的患者经调整后的神经功能完好生存率。
作者对2005年1月1日至2008年9月28日期间全州范围内的院外心脏骤停进行了回顾性分析。该分析纳入了连续的成年院外心脏骤停患者,这些患者接受了复苏,包括不间断的心肺复苏(CPR),即不间断的电击前和电击后胸部按压、初始无创气道操作以及早期肾上腺素治疗。护理人员选择初始无创通气的方法,包括被动通气(插入口咽气道并通过非重复呼吸面罩给予高流量氧气,无辅助通气)或球囊面罩通气(护理人员以8次/分钟的频率进行)。作者通过医院和公共记录以及电话访谈和邮寄问卷确定经调整后的神经功能完好生存率。作者使用广义估计方程比较了不同通气技术之间经调整后的神经功能完好生存率。
在分析的1019例成年院外心脏骤停患者中,459例接受了被动通气,560例接受了球囊面罩通气。在目击的室颤/室速性院外心脏骤停后,接受被动通气的患者经调整后的神经功能完好生存率(39/102;38.2%)高于接受球囊面罩通气的患者(31/120;25.8%)(调整后的优势比[OR]为2.5;95%置信区间[CI]为1.3至4.6)。在未目击的室颤/室速(7.3%对13.8%;调整后的OR为0.5;95%CI为0.2至1.6)和不可电击心律(1.3%对3.7%;调整后的OR为0.3;95%CI为0.1至1.0)情况下,被动通气和球囊面罩通气的生存率相似。
在接受最少中断心脏复苏的成年、目击的室颤/室速性院外心脏骤停患者中,接受初始被动通气的个体经调整后的出院时神经功能完好生存率高于接受初始球囊面罩通气的个体。