Cudnik Michael T, Schmicker Robert H, Vaillancourt Christian, Newgard Craig D, Christenson James M, Davis Daniel P, Lowe Robert A
Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Resuscitation. 2010 May;81(5):518-23. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.030. Epub 2010 Feb 1.
National leaders have suggested that patients with an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) may benefit from transport to specialized hospitals. We sought to assess the survival of OOHCA patients by transport distance and hospital proximity.
Prospective, cohort study of OOHCA patients in 11 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) sites across North America. Transport distance and hospital proximity was calculated using weighted centroid of census tract location by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Patients were stratified into quartiles based on transport distance to the receiving hospital calculated via GIS. Descriptive statistics were used to describe characteristics by transport distance and to compare proximity to other hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of transport distance on survival.
26,628 patients were identified, 7540 (28%) were transported by EMS and included in the final analysis. The median transport time was 6.3 min (IQR 5.4); the median transport distance being 2.4 miles (3.9 km). Most patients were taken to the closest hospital (71.7%; N=5412). However, unadjusted survival to discharge was lower for those taken to the closest compared to further hospitals (12.1% vs. 16.5%) despite similar patient characteristics. Transport distance was not associated with survival on logistic analysis (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01).
Survival to discharge was higher in OOHCA patients taken to hospitals located further than the closest hospital while transport distance was not associated with survival. This suggests that longer transport distance/time might not adversely affect outcome. Further studies are needed to inform policy decisions regarding best destination post-cardiac arrest.
国家领导人曾提出,院外心脏骤停(OOHCA)患者可能会从转运至专科医院中获益。我们试图通过转运距离和医院距离来评估院外心脏骤停患者的生存率。
对北美11个复苏结局联盟(ROC)站点的院外心脏骤停患者进行前瞻性队列研究。使用地理信息系统(GIS)通过人口普查区位置的加权质心来计算转运距离和医院距离。根据通过GIS计算的到接收医院的转运距离,将患者分为四分位数。使用描述性统计来描述按转运距离划分的特征,并比较与其他医院的距离。使用多变量逻辑回归来评估转运距离对生存率的影响。
共识别出26628例患者,其中7540例(28%)由紧急医疗服务(EMS)转运并纳入最终分析。中位转运时间为6.3分钟(四分位间距5.4);中位转运距离为2.4英里(3.9公里)。大多数患者被送往最近的医院(71.7%;N = 5412)。然而,尽管患者特征相似,但与送往较远医院的患者相比,送往最近医院的患者出院时的未调整生存率较低(12.1%对16.5%)。逻辑分析显示转运距离与生存率无关(比值比1.00;95%置信区间0.99 - 1.01)。
院外心脏骤停患者被送往距离最近医院较远的医院时,出院生存率更高,而转运距离与生存率无关。这表明较长的转运距离/时间可能不会对结局产生不利影响。需要进一步研究以为心脏骤停后最佳目的地的政策决策提供依据。