Suppr超能文献

心肺复苏后治疗性低温治疗并不能提高存活率。

Survival does not improve when therapeutic hypothermia is added to post-cardiac arrest care.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine I, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2011 Sep;82(9):1168-73. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.05.024. Epub 2011 Jun 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether the use of therapeutic hypothermia improves the outcome after cardiac arrest (CA) under routine clinical conditions.

METHOD

In a retrospective study, data of CA survivors treated from 2003 to 2010 were analysed. Of these, 143 patients were treated with hypothermia at 33 ± 0.5°C for 24h according to predefined inclusion criteria, while 67 who did not fulfil these criteria received comparable therapy without hypothermia.

RESULTS

210 patients were included, 143 in the hypothermia group (HG) and 67 in the normothermia group (NG). There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups; 69 (48.2%) in the HG died in the first four weeks, compared to 30 patients (44.8%) in the NG (p=0.659). Patients in the NG were older and more seriously ill, and CA occurred more often in-hospital. Binary logistic regression revealed ventricular fibrillation (p=0.044), NSE serum level < 33 ng ml⁻¹ (p<0.001), age (p=0.035) and witnessed cardiac arrest (p=0.043) as independent factors significantly improving survival after CA, whereas hypothermia was not (p=0.69). The target temperature was maintained for a significantly longer time (19.5h vs. 15.2h; p=0.003) in hypothermia patients with a favourable outcome than in those with an unfavourable outcome.

CONCLUSION

There was no improvement in survival rates when hypothermia was added to standard therapy in this case series, as compared to standard therapy alone. The time at target temperature may be of relevance. We need better evidence in order to expand the recommendations for hypothermia after CA.

摘要

背景

我们研究了在常规临床条件下,使用治疗性低温是否能改善心脏骤停(CA)后的预后。

方法

在一项回顾性研究中,分析了 2003 年至 2010 年期间接受治疗的 CA 幸存者的数据。其中,143 例患者根据预先确定的纳入标准接受 33 ± 0.5°C 的低温治疗 24 小时,而 67 例不符合这些标准的患者接受了无低温治疗的可比治疗。

结果

共纳入 210 例患者,其中 143 例在低温组(HG),67 例在常温组(NG)。两组死亡率无显著差异;HG 组中有 69 例(48.2%)在头四周死亡,而 NG 组中有 30 例(44.8%)(p=0.659)。NG 组患者年龄较大,病情较重,CA 更常发生在院内。二元逻辑回归显示室颤(p=0.044)、NSE 血清水平 < 33ng/ml-1(p<0.001)、年龄(p=0.035)和目击性 CA(p=0.043)是 CA 后存活的独立危险因素,而低温治疗不是(p=0.69)。低温治疗后存活的患者目标温度维持时间明显更长(19.5 小时与 15.2 小时;p=0.003)。

结论

与单独标准治疗相比,在该病例系列中,在标准治疗的基础上添加低温治疗并未提高生存率。达到目标温度的时间可能是相关的。我们需要更好的证据来扩展 CA 后低温治疗的建议。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验