Suppr超能文献

心源性院外心脏骤停时单纯胸外按压与传统心肺复苏的时间依赖性效果。

Time-dependent effectiveness of chest compression-only and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin.

机构信息

Kyoto University Health Service, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2011 Jan;82(1):3-9. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.09.468. Epub 2010 Nov 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the effect of the type of bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for prolonged out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the time-dependent effectiveness of chest compression-only and conventional CPR with rescue breathing for witnessed adult OHCA of cardiac origin.

METHODS

A nationwide, prospective, population-based, observational study of the whole population of Japan included consecutive OHCA patients with emergency responder resuscitation attempts from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2007. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the contribution of the bystander-initiated CPR technique to favourable neurological outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 55014 bystander-witnessed OHCA of cardiac origin, 12165 (22.1%) received chest compression-only CPR and 10851 (19.7%) received conventional CPR. For short-duration OHCA (0-15min after collapse), compression-only CPR had a higher rate of survival with favourable neurological outcome than no CPR (6.4% vs. 3.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR), 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38-1.74), and conventional CPR showed similar effectiveness (7.1% vs. 3.8%; adjusted OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.58-2.01). For the long-duration arrests (>15min), conventional CPR showed a significantly higher rate of survival with favourable neurological outcome than both no CPR (2.0% vs. 0.7%; adjusted OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.27-2.93) and compression-only CPR (2.0% vs. 1.3%; adjusted OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44).

CONCLUSIONS

For prolonged OHCA of cardiac origin, conventional CPR with rescue breathing provided incremental benefit compared with either no CPR or compression-only CPR, but the absolute survival was low regardless of type of CPR.

摘要

背景

对于长时间的院外心脏骤停(OHCA),旁观者启动的心肺复苏(CPR)类型的效果知之甚少。

目的

评估单纯胸外按压和传统 CPR 加呼吸复苏对有目击者的成人心脏源性 OHCA 的时间依赖性效果。

方法

这是一项全国性、前瞻性、基于人群的观察性研究,纳入了 2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2007 年 12 月 31 日期间由急救人员进行复苏尝试的所有日本 OHCA 患者。采用多因素逻辑回归分析评估旁观者启动的 CPR 技术对良好神经功能结局的贡献。

结果

在 55014 例有旁观者目击的心脏源性 OHCA 中,12165 例(22.1%)接受了单纯胸外按压 CPR,10851 例(19.7%)接受了传统 CPR。对于短时间 OHCA(发病后 0-15 分钟),单纯按压 CPR 的存活率和良好神经功能结局的发生率高于无 CPR(6.4%比 3.8%;调整后的优势比(OR),1.55;95%置信区间(CI),1.38-1.74),传统 CPR 显示出相似的效果(7.1%比 3.8%;调整后的 OR,1.78;95% CI,1.58-2.01)。对于长时间的停搏(>15 分钟),传统 CPR 的存活率和良好神经功能结局的发生率均明显高于无 CPR(2.0%比 0.7%;调整后的 OR,1.93;95% CI,1.27-2.93)和单纯按压 CPR(2.0%比 1.3%;调整后的 OR,1.56;95% CI,1.02-2.44)。

结论

对于长时间的心脏源性 OHCA,与无 CPR 或单纯胸外按压 CPR 相比,传统 CPR 加呼吸复苏提供了额外的益处,但无论哪种 CPR,存活率都很低。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验