Tanabe Seizan, Yasunaga Hideo, Ogawa Toshio, Koike Soichi, Akahane Manabu, Horiguchi Hiromasa, Hatanaka Tetsuo, Yokota Hiroyuki, Imamura Tomoaki
Emergency Life-Saving Technique Academy of Tokyo, 4–5 Minamiosawa, Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012 Sep 1;5(5):689-96. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.965319. Epub 2012 Sep 11.
The use and popularity of the biphasic waveform defibrillator as a replacement for the monophasic waveform defibrillator are increasing, but it is unclear whether this can improve the rate of survival among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. This study aimed to verify the hypothesis that the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received defibrillation shock with the biphasic waveform defibrillator was better than that of patients who received defibrillation shock with the monophasic defibrillator.
This prospective, nationwide, population-based, observational study included 21 172 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with initial ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Defibrillation shock was performed by monophasic defibrillator on 8224 (39%) patients and by biphasic defibrillator on 12 948 (61%) patients. The rate of survival at 1 month with minimal neurological impairment was 11.6% (951/8192) in the monophasic defibrillator group and 12.8% (1653/12 928) in the biphasic defibrillator group. Hierarchical logistic regression analysis using a generalized estimation equation showed no significant difference between the biphasic and monophasic groups in 1-month survival with minimal neurological impairment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.26; P=0.42). Confirmatory propensity score analyses showed similar results.
Although monophasic defibrillators are being replaced by biphasic defibrillators, our nationwide population-based observational study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant association between defibrillation waveform and 1-month survival rate with minimal neurological impairment.
双相波除颤器作为单相波除颤器的替代品,其使用和普及程度正在增加,但尚不清楚这是否能提高院外心脏骤停患者的生存率。本研究旨在验证以下假设:接受双相波除颤器除颤电击的院外心脏骤停患者的结局优于接受单相波除颤器除颤电击的患者。
这项前瞻性、全国性、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21172例初始为心室颤动或无脉性室性心动过速的院外心脏骤停患者。8224例(39%)患者使用单相波除颤器进行除颤电击,12948例(61%)患者使用双相波除颤器进行除颤电击。单相波除颤器组1个月时伴有轻度神经功能障碍的生存率为11.6%(951/8192),双相波除颤器组为12.8%(1653/12928)。使用广义估计方程进行的分层逻辑回归分析显示,双相波组和单相波组在1个月时伴有轻度神经功能障碍的生存率之间无显著差异(校正比值比为1.07;95%置信区间为0.91-1.26;P=0.42)。验证性倾向评分分析显示了类似结果。
尽管单相波除颤器正被双相波除颤器所取代,但我们基于全国人群的观察性研究未能证明除颤波形与1个月时伴有轻度神经功能障碍的生存率之间存在统计学上的显著关联。