Suppr超能文献

通过紧急医疗服务到达可改善严重脓毒症或感染性休克患者的治疗终点时间。

Arriving by emergency medical services improves time to treatment endpoints for patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Sep;18(9):934-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01145.x. Epub 2011 Aug 30.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the effect of arrival to the emergency department (ED) by emergency medical services (EMS) on time to initiation of antibiotics, time to initiation of intravenous fluids (IVF), and in-hospital mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

METHODS

The authors performed an evaluation of prospectively collected registry data of patients with a diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock who presented to an urban academic ED during a 2-year period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2006. Descriptive and multivariate analytic methods were used to analyze the data. Using unadjusted and adjusted models, out-of-hospital patients who presented to the ED by ambulance (EMS) were compared to control patients who arrived by alternative means (non-EMS). Primary outcomes measured were ED time to initiation of antibiotics, ED time to initiation of IVF, and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 963 severe sepsis patients were enrolled in the registry. Median time to antibiotics was 116 minutes for EMS (interquartile range [IQR] = 66 to 199) vs. 152 minutes for non-EMS (IQR = 92 to 252, p ≤ 0.001). Median time to initiation of IVF was 34 minutes for EMS (IQR = 10 to 88) and 68 minutes for non-EMS (IQR = 25 to 121, p ≤ 0.001). After adjustment for the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, age, and initial serum lactate level, no significant differences in hospital mortality were seen (adjusted relative risk [aRR] for EMS vs. non EMS = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92 to 1.66, p = 0.16). The Cox proportional hazard ratio (HR) comparing EMS to non-EMS care after similar adjustment was HR = 1.27 for IVF (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.47, p = 0.004) and HR = 1.25 for antibiotics (95% CI = 1.08 to 1.44, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-hospital care was associated with improved in-hospital processes for the care of critically ill patients. Despite shortened ED treatment times for septic patients who arrive by EMS, a mortality benefit could not be demonstrated.

摘要

目的

评估因严重脓毒症和感染性休克而到急诊科(ED)就诊的患者通过急救医疗服务(EMS)到达的时间对开始使用抗生素、开始静脉输液(IVF)以及院内死亡率的影响。

方法

作者对 2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2006 年 12 月 31 日期间在城市学术 ED 就诊的严重脓毒症或感染性休克患者的前瞻性收集的登记数据进行了评估。采用描述性和多变量分析方法分析数据。使用未经调整和调整后的模型,将通过救护车(EMS)到达 ED 的院外患者与通过其他方式(非 EMS)到达的对照患者进行比较。主要结局指标为 ED 开始使用抗生素的时间、ED 开始使用 IVF 的时间和院内死亡率。

结果

共有 963 名严重脓毒症患者纳入登记处。EMS 的中位抗生素使用时间为 116 分钟(四分位距[IQR] = 66 至 199),而非 EMS 为 152 分钟(IQR = 92 至 252,p≤0.001)。EMS 组开始使用 IVF 的中位时间为 34 分钟(IQR = 10 至 88),而非 EMS 组为 68 分钟(IQR = 25 至 121,p≤0.001)。在调整急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II(APACHE II)评分、年龄和初始血清乳酸水平后,未观察到医院死亡率有显著差异(EMS 与非 EMS 的调整后相对风险[aRR] = 1.24,95%置信区间[CI] = 0.92 至 1.66,p = 0.16)。在进行类似调整后,EMS 与非 EMS 治疗相比,IVF 的 Cox 比例风险比(HR)为 1.27(95%CI = 1.10 至 1.47,p = 0.004),抗生素的 HR 为 1.25(95%CI = 1.08 至 1.44,p = 0.003)。

结论

院外治疗与危重症患者治疗的院内流程改善有关。尽管通过 EMS 到达的脓毒症患者的 ED 治疗时间缩短,但未能证明死亡率有所改善。

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