Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Apr;59(4):296-303. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.07.021. Epub 2011 Aug 27.
Advanced, out-of-hospital procedures such as intravenous access are commonly performed by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, yet little evidence supports their use among noninjured patients. We evaluate the association between out-of-hospital, intravenous access and mortality among noninjured, non-cardiac arrest patients.
We analyzed a population-based cohort of adult (aged ≥18 years) noninjured, non-cardiac arrest patients transported by 4 advanced life support agencies to one of 16 hospitals from January 1, 2002, until December 31, 2006. We linked eligible EMS records to hospital administrative data and used multivariable logistic regression to determine the risk-adjusted association between out-of-hospital intravenous access and hospital mortality. We also tested whether this association differed by patient acuity by using a previously published, out-of-hospital triage score.
Among 56,332 eligible patients, half (N=28,078; 50%) received out-of-hospital intravenous access from EMS personnel. Overall hospital mortality for patients who did and did not receive intravenous access was 3%. However, in multivariable analyses, the placement of out-of-hospital, intravenous access was associated with an overall reduction in odds of hospital mortality (odds ratio=0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.81). The beneficial association of intravenous access appeared to depend on patient acuity (P=.13 for interaction). For example, the odds ratio of mortality associated with intravenous access was 1.38 (95% CI 0.28 to 7.0) among patients with lowest acuity (score=0). In contrast, the odds ratio of mortality associated with intravenous access was 0.38 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.9) among patients with highest acuity (score ≥6).
In this population-based cohort, out-of-hospital efforts to establish intravenous access were associated with a reduction in hospital mortality among noninjured, non-cardiac arrest patients with the highest acuity. Reasons why this occurred (cause and effect) could not be determined in this model.
静脉通路等高级的院外急救程序通常由急救医疗服务人员(EMS)执行,然而,很少有证据支持在非创伤患者中使用这些程序。我们评估了非创伤性、非心搏骤停患者的院外静脉通路与死亡率之间的关系。
我们分析了 2002 年 1 月 1 日至 2006 年 12 月 31 日期间,4 个高级生命支持机构向 16 家医院转运的、年龄≥18 岁的非创伤性、非心搏骤停成人患者的基于人群的队列。我们将符合条件的 EMS 记录与医院行政数据相链接,并使用多变量逻辑回归来确定院外静脉通路与医院死亡率之间的风险调整关联。我们还通过使用先前发表的院外分诊评分来测试这种关联是否因患者的严重程度而有所不同。
在 56332 名符合条件的患者中,有一半(N=28078;50%)接受了 EMS 人员的院外静脉通路。接受和未接受静脉通路的患者的总体医院死亡率为 3%。然而,在多变量分析中,院外静脉通路的建立与医院死亡率的降低呈正相关(比值比=0.68;95%置信区间 [CI] 0.56 至 0.81)。静脉通路的有益关联似乎取决于患者的严重程度(交互作用的 P 值为 0.13)。例如,在严重程度最低(评分=0)的患者中,与静脉通路相关的死亡率的比值比为 1.38(95%CI 0.28 至 7.0)。相比之下,在严重程度最高(评分≥6)的患者中,与静脉通路相关的死亡率的比值比为 0.38(95%CI 0.17 至 0.9)。
在本基于人群的队列中,在最高严重程度的非创伤性、非心搏骤停患者中,建立院外静脉通路的努力与降低医院死亡率相关。在这个模型中,无法确定发生这种情况的原因(因果关系)。