Satterlee Paul A, Boland Lori L, Johnson Pamela Jo, Hagstrom Steve G, Page David I, Lick Charles J
Allina Health EMS, St. Paul, Minnesota.
J Emerg Med. 2013 Oct;45(4):562-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2013.04.012. Epub 2013 Aug 2.
We will describe the implementation of the LUCAS™1 chest compression device as standard equipment in the treatment of cardiac arrest across a large ambulance service and provide descriptive data on device-treated arrests and provider experience during the initial 2 years of use.
Provider training and deployment of 38 devices occurred in our 70-vehicle, 400-provider ambulance service within 3 months. A retrospective case series of device-eligible out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurring between May 2008 and June 2010 was analyzed. Clinical data were extracted from an electronic prehospital patient care record and information on provider experience with the device was collected via online survey.
LUCAS™1 was used in 79% of resuscitation attempts (498 of 631). Primary reasons for nonuse were resuscitation of limited duration and extreme body size. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was documented in 35% and 41% of device- and non-device-treated arrests, respectively (p = 0.31), but among arrests where time from arrival at patient to discontinuation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was >5 min, the rates were 26% and 24%, respectively (p = 0.78).
A large ambulance service in the United States initiated standard use of a mechanical compression device within 3 months. In an applied setting, the LUCAS™1 device fits most patients and was well received by prehospital providers. Resuscitation of limited duration due to early death or early ROSC frequently precludes device use, and this has important implications for evaluating the association between device use and ROSC in observational settings.
我们将描述LUCAS™1胸外按压装置作为标准设备在大型急救服务机构中用于治疗心脏骤停的实施情况,并提供在使用该装置的最初两年中接受该装置治疗的心脏骤停病例以及急救人员经验的描述性数据。
在3个月内,我们拥有70辆救护车、400名急救人员的急救服务机构对38台该装置进行了急救人员培训和部署。对2008年5月至2010年6月期间发生的符合使用该装置条件的院外心脏骤停进行回顾性病例系列分析。临床数据从电子院前患者护理记录中提取,急救人员对该装置使用经验的信息通过在线调查收集。
在631次复苏尝试中,79%(498次)使用了LUCAS™1。未使用的主要原因是复苏持续时间有限和患者体型过大。分别有35%和41%的使用该装置和未使用该装置治疗的心脏骤停患者记录到自主循环恢复(ROSC)(p = 0.31),但在从到达患者现场到停止心肺复苏时间>5分钟的心脏骤停患者中,这一比例分别为26%和24%(p = 0.78)。
美国一家大型急救服务机构在3个月内开始将机械按压装置作为标准设备使用。在实际应用中,LUCAS™1装置适合大多数患者,并受到院前急救人员的好评。由于早期死亡或早期ROSC导致复苏持续时间有限常常使该装置无法使用,这对于在观察性研究中评估装置使用与ROSC之间的关联具有重要意义。