Institute for Experimental Medical Research, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, N-0407 Oslo, Norway.
JAMA. 2009 Nov 25;302(20):2222-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1729.
Intravenous access and drug administration are included in advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) guidelines despite a lack of evidence for improved outcomes. Epinephrine was an independent predictor of poor outcome in a large epidemiological study, possibly due to toxicity of the drug or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) interruptions secondary to establishing an intravenous line and drug administration.
To determine whether removing intravenous drug administration from an ACLS protocol would improve survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, randomized controlled trial of consecutive adult patients with out-of-hospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest treated within the emergency medical service system in Oslo, Norway, between May 1, 2003, and April 28, 2008.
Advanced cardiac life support with intravenous drug administration or ACLS without access to intravenous drug administration.
The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes were 1-year survival, survival with favorable neurological outcome, hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation, and quality of CPR (chest compression rate, pauses, and ventilation rate).
Of 1183 patients for whom resuscitation was attempted, 851 were included; 418 patients were in the ACLS with intravenous drug administration group and 433 were in the ACLS with no access to intravenous drug administration group. The rate of survival to hospital discharge was 10.5% for the intravenous drug administration group and 9.2% for the no intravenous drug administration group (P = .61), 32% vs 21%, respectively, (P<.001) for hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation, 9.8% vs 8.1% (P = .45) for survival with favorable neurological outcome, and 10% vs 8% (P = .53) for survival at 1 year. The quality of CPR was comparable and within guideline recommendations for both groups. After adjustment for ventricular fibrillation, response interval, witnessed arrest, or arrest in a public location, there was no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge for the intravenous group vs the no intravenous group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.91).
Compared with patients who received ACLS without intravenous drug administration following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, patients with intravenous access and drug administration had higher rates of short-term survival with no statistically significant improvement in survival to hospital discharge, quality of CPR, or long-term survival.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00121524.
尽管缺乏改善结局的证据,静脉通路和药物给药仍包含在高级心脏生命支持(ACLS)指南中。在一项大型流行病学研究中,肾上腺素是预后不良的独立预测因子,这可能是由于药物毒性或建立静脉通路和给药导致心肺复苏(CPR)中断。
确定在院外心脏骤停后从 ACLS 方案中去除静脉内药物给药是否会提高存活至出院的几率。
设计、地点和患者:挪威奥斯陆急救医疗服务系统中,2003 年 5 月 1 日至 2008 年 4 月 28 日连续进行的院外非创伤性心脏骤停成年患者的前瞻性随机对照试验。
静脉内药物给药的高级心脏生命支持或无静脉内药物给药途径的 ACLS。
主要结局是存活至出院。次要结局是 1 年生存率、有良好神经结局的生存率、入院时自发循环恢复以及 CPR 质量(按压率、暂停和通气率)。
在尝试复苏的 1183 例患者中,851 例被纳入;418 例患者在 ACLS 静脉内药物给药组,433 例患者在 ACLS 无静脉内药物给药组。静脉内药物给药组的出院存活率为 10.5%,无静脉内药物给药组为 9.2%(P=0.61),分别为 32%和 21%(P<.001),入院时自发循环恢复的比例,9.8%和 8.1%(P=0.45),神经功能良好的生存率为 10%和 8%(P=0.53),1 年生存率为 10%和 8%(P=0.53)。两组的 CPR 质量都在指南推荐范围内,且相似。在校正室颤、反应时间、目击者骤停或在公共场所骤停后,静脉内组与无静脉内组的出院存活率无显著差异(调整后的优势比,1.15;95%置信区间,0.69-1.91)。
与接受院外心脏骤停后 ACLS 无静脉内药物给药的患者相比,接受静脉通路和药物给药的患者短期生存率较高,但出院存活率、CPR 质量或长期生存率无统计学显著改善。
clinicaltrials.gov 标识符:NCT00121524。