Hock Ong Marcus Eng, Fook-Chong Stephanie, Annathurai Annitha, Ang Shiang Hu, Tiah Ling, Yong Kok Leong, Koh Zhi Xiong, Yap Susan, Sultana Papia
Crit Care. 2012 Aug 3;16(4):R144. doi: 10.1186/cc11456.
It has been unclear if mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a viable alternative to manual CPR. We aimed to compare resuscitation outcomes before and after switching from manual CPR to load-distributing band (LDB) CPR in a multi-center emergency department (ED) trial.
We conducted a phased, prospective cohort evaluation with intention-to-treat analysis of adults with non-traumatic cardiac arrest. At these two urban EDs, systems were changed from manual CPR to LDB-CPR. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, with secondary outcome measures of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission and neurological outcome at discharge.
A total of 1,011 patients were included in the study, with 459 in the manual CPR phase (January 01, 2004, to August 24, 2007) and 552 patients in the LDB-CPR phase (August 16, 2007, to December 31, 2009). In the LDB phase, the LDB device was applied in 454 patients (82.3%). Patients in the manual CPR and LDB-CPR phases were comparable for mean age, gender and ethnicity. The mean duration from collapse to arrival at ED (min) for manual CPR and LDB-CPR phases was 34:03 (SD16:59) and 33:18 (SD14:57) respectively. The rate of survival to hospital discharge tended to be higher in the LDB-CPR phase (LDB 3.3% vs Manual 1.3%; adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.47, 4.29). There were more survivors in LDB group with cerebral performance category 1 (good) (Manual 1 vs LDB 12, P = 0.01). Overall performance category 1 (good) was Manual 1 vs LDB 10, P = 0.06.
A resuscitation strategy using LDB-CPR in an ED environment was associated with improved neurologically intact survival on discharge in adults with prolonged, non-traumatic cardiac arrest.
机械心肺复苏(CPR)是否可作为徒手CPR的可行替代方法尚不清楚。我们旨在通过一项多中心急诊科(ED)试验,比较从徒手CPR转换为负载分配带(LDB)CPR前后的复苏结果。
我们对非创伤性心脏骤停的成年人进行了分阶段的前瞻性队列评估,并进行意向性治疗分析。在这两家城市急诊科,系统从徒手CPR改为LDB-CPR。主要结局是存活至出院,次要结局指标包括自主循环恢复、存活至入院以及出院时的神经学结局。
共有1011例患者纳入研究,其中459例处于徒手CPR阶段(2004年1月1日至2007年8月24日),552例患者处于LDB-CPR阶段(2007年8月16日至2009年12月31日)。在LDB阶段,454例患者(82.3%)应用了LDB设备。徒手CPR阶段和LDB-CPR阶段的患者在平均年龄、性别和种族方面具有可比性。徒手CPR阶段和LDB-CPR阶段从心脏骤停至到达急诊科的平均时长(分钟)分别为34:03(标准差16:59)和33:18(标准差14:57)。LDB-CPR阶段存活至出院的比例趋于更高(LDB为3.3%,徒手为1.3%;校正比值比,1.42;95%置信区间,0.47,4.29)。LDB组中脑功能分级为1级(良好)的幸存者更多(徒手组1例,LDB组12例,P = 0.01)。总体功能分级为1级(良好)的情况是,徒手组1例,LDB组10例,P = 0.06。
在急诊科环境中,使用LDB-CPR的复苏策略与延长的非创伤性心脏骤停成年患者出院时神经功能完好存活的改善相关。