Tanabe Seizan, Yasunaga Hideo, Koike Soichi, Akahane Manabu, Ogawa Toshio, Horiguchi Hiromasa, Hatanaka Tetsuo, Yokota Hiroyuki, Imamura Tomoaki
Crit Care. 2012 Nov 13;16(6):R219. doi: 10.1186/cc11864.
Conventional monophasic defibrillators for out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients have been replaced with biphasic defibrillators. However, the advantage of biphasic over monophasic defibrillation for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the survival outcomes of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients who underwent monophasic defibrillation with those who underwent biphasic defibrillation.
This prospective, nationwide, population-based observational study included pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. The primary outcome measure was survival at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment. The secondary outcome measures were survival at 1 month and the return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent association between defibrillator type (monophasic or biphasic) and outcomes.
Among 5,628 pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac-arrest patients (1 through 17 years old), 430 who received defibrillation shock with monophasic or biphasic defibrillator were analyzed. The number of patients who received defibrillation shock with monophasic defibrillator was 127 (30%), and 303 (70%) received defibrillation shock with biphasic defibrillator. The survival rates at 1 month with minimal neurologic impairment were 17.5% and 24.4%, the survival rates at 1 month were 32.3% and 35.6%, and the rates of return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival were 24.4% and 27.4% in the monophasic and biphasic defibrillator groups, respectively. Hierarchic logistic regression analyses by using generalized estimation equations found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 1-month survival with minimal neurologic impairment (odds ratio (OR), 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 2.83; P = 0.14) and 1-month survival (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.87 to 2.18; P = 0.17).
The present nationwide population-based observational study could not confirm an advantage of biphasic over monophasic defibrillators for pediatric OHCA patients.
用于院外心脏骤停患者的传统单相除颤器已被双相除颤器所取代。然而,双相除颤相对于单相除颤对于儿科院外心脏骤停患者的优势仍不明确。本研究旨在比较接受单相除颤的儿科院外心脏骤停患者与接受双相除颤的患者的生存结局。
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2009年12月31日期间的儿科院外心脏骤停患者。主要结局指标是1个月时存活且神经功能损害最小。次要结局指标是1个月时存活以及在到达医院前恢复自主循环。进行多变量逻辑回归分析以确定除颤器类型(单相或双相)与结局之间的独立关联。
在5628例儿科院外心脏骤停患者(1至17岁)中,分析了430例接受单相或双相除颤器除颤电击的患者。接受单相除颤器除颤电击的患者有127例(30%),接受双相除颤器除颤电击的有303例(70%)。单相和双相除颤器组中,1个月时神经功能损害最小的存活率分别为17.5%和24.4%,1个月时的存活率分别为32.3%和35.6%,在到达医院前恢复自主循环的比例分别为24.4%和27.4%。使用广义估计方程进行的分层逻辑回归分析发现,两组在1个月时神经功能损害最小的存活情况(优势比(OR)为1.57;95%置信区间(CI)为0.87至2.83;P = 0.14)和1个月时存活情况(OR为1.38;95%CI为0.87至2.18;P = 0.17)方面无显著差异。
当前这项基于全国人群的观察性研究未能证实双相除颤器相对于单相除颤器对儿科院外心脏骤停患者具有优势。