Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Apr 20;55(16):1713-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.11.077.
The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of contemporary automatic external defibrillator (AED) use.
In the PAD (Public Access Defibrillation) trial, survival was doubled by focused training of lay volunteers to use an AED in high-risk public settings.
We performed a population-based cohort study of persons with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest before emergency medical system (EMS) arrival at Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) sites between December 2005 and May 2007. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the independent association between AED application and survival to hospital discharge.
Of 13,769 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 4,403 (32.0%) received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation but had no AED applied before EMS arrival, and 289 (2.1%) had an AED applied before EMS arrival. The AED was applied by health care workers (32%), lay volunteers (35%), police (26%), or unknown (7%). Overall survival to hospital discharge was 7%. Survival was 9% (382 of 4,403) with bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation but no AED, 24% (69 of 289) with AED application, and 38% (64 of 170) with AED shock delivered. In multivariable analyses adjusting for: 1) age and sex; 2) bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed; 3) location of arrest (public or private); 4) EMS response interval; 5) arrest witnessed; 6) initial shockable or not shockable rhythm; and 7) study site, AED application was associated with greater likelihood of survival (odds ratio: 1.75; 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 2.50; p < 0.002). Extrapolating this greater survival from the ROC EMS population base (21 million) to the population of the U.S. and Canada (330 million), AED application by bystanders seems to save 474 lives/year.
Application of an AED in communities is associated with nearly a doubling of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. These results reinforce the importance of strategically expanding community-based AED programs.
本研究旨在评估当代自动体外除颤器(AED)的使用效果。
在 PAD(公共获取除颤)试验中,通过对志愿者进行重点培训,使其在高风险公共环境中使用 AED,使生存率提高了一倍。
我们对 2005 年 12 月至 2007 年 5 月期间在复苏结果联合会(ROC)站点外发生的非创伤性院外心脏骤停患者进行了一项基于人群的队列研究。采用多变量逻辑回归评估在紧急医疗服务(EMS)到达前应用 AED 与生存至出院之间的独立关联。
在 13769 例院外心脏骤停中,4403 例(32.0%)在 EMS 到达前接受了旁观者心肺复苏,但在 EMS 到达前未使用 AED,289 例(2.1%)在 EMS 到达前使用了 AED。AED 由医务人员(32%)、志愿者(35%)、警察(26%)或未知人员(7%)使用。总体出院生存率为 7%。在未使用 AED 的情况下,旁观者心肺复苏的生存率为 9%(382/4403),使用 AED 的生存率为 24%(69/289),使用 AED 电击的生存率为 38%(64/170)。在多变量分析中,调整了以下因素:1)年龄和性别;2)旁观者心肺复苏的实施;3)骤停地点(公共或私人);4)EMS 反应间隔;5)是否目击骤停;6)初始可电击或不可电击节律;7)研究地点。应用 AED 与生存率的提高更相关(优势比:1.75;95%置信区间:1.23 至 2.50;p<0.002)。将 ROC EMS 人群基数(2100 万)中的这种更高生存率外推至美国和加拿大(3.3 亿)的人口中,旁观者使用 AED 似乎每年可挽救 474 条生命。
在社区中应用 AED 与院外心脏骤停后生存率的提高几乎翻了一番。这些结果强化了战略性扩大基于社区的 AED 计划的重要性。