Suppr超能文献

仅通过除颤急救技术人员/初级护理急救人员评估急诊科ST段抬高型心肌梗死搭桥术的安全性和有效性。

Assessment of the safety and effectiveness of emergency department STEMI bypass by defibrillation-only emergency medical technicians/primary care paramedics.

作者信息

Ross Garry, Alsayed Thamir, Turner Linda, Olynyk Chris, Thurston Adam, Verbeek P Richard

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015 Apr-Jun;19(2):191-201. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2014.959226. Epub 2014 Oct 8.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The American Heart Association (AHA) suggests emergency medical service (EMS) providers transporting ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center require advanced life support (ALS) skills.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential safety and time savings effectiveness of defibrillation-only emergency medical technician/primary care paramedic (EMT-D/PCP) EMS transport to a PCI center in a system where only emergency medical technician-paramedics/advanced care paramedics (EMT-Ps/ACPs) are authorized to bypass non-PCI hospitals.

METHODS

We reviewed 89 consecutive patients meeting STEMI criteria transported by EMT-Ds/PCPs per protocol by one of three paths: 1) closest non-PCI center emergency department (ED) with secondary transfer by EMT-Ps/ACPs to a PCI lab, 2) rendezvous with EMT-Ps/ACPs and diversion to a PCI lab, and 3) PCI center ED if it was closest. Actual transport times to the PCI center ED were compared to predicted transport times determined by mapping software had EMT-Ds/PCPs followed a direct path. Lastly, we recorded predefined clinically important events and advanced care interventions.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven, 51, and 11 patients followed paths 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Median transport times for path 1 were 6 (IQR 5) minutes to reach the nearest non-PCI center ED and 66 (IQR 45) minutes to the PCI center ED compared to a median predicted 13 (IQR 7) minutes to a PCI center ED had EMT-Ds/PCPs followed a direct path. Median transport time for path 2 was 12 (IQR 8) minutes compared to a median predicted time of 11 (IQR 6) minutes had no EMT-P/ACP rendezvous occurred. Median transport time for path 3 was 7 minutes (IQR 5). Three patients experienced prehospital cardiac arrest; 1 required dopamine, and 4 others received a saline bolus for hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial time savings may occur if EMT-Ds/PCPs bypass non-PCI center EDs with only a small predicted increase (about 7 minutes) in the transport time to the PCI center ED. EMT-P/ACP rendezvous does not appear to substantially increase transport time. Given the relatively low occurrence of clinically important events, our findings suggest that EMT-D/PCP bypass to a PCI center ED may be safe and effective for selected STEMI patients.

摘要

引言

美国心脏协会(AHA)建议,将ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者转运至经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中心的紧急医疗服务(EMS)提供者需具备高级生命支持(ALS)技能。

目的

在一个仅授权紧急医疗技术员-护理人员/高级护理人员(EMT-Ps/ACPs)绕过非PCI医院的系统中,评估仅具备除颤功能的紧急医疗技术员/初级护理人员(EMT-D/PCP)将EMS转运至PCI中心的潜在安全性和节省时间的有效性。

方法

我们回顾了89例符合STEMI标准的连续患者,这些患者由EMT-Ds/PCPs按照方案通过三种路径之一进行转运:1)最近的非PCI中心急诊科(ED),然后由EMT-Ps/ACPs二次转运至PCI实验室;2)与EMT-Ps/ACPs会合后转至PCI实验室;3)如果PCI中心急诊科最近,则直接转运至该科室。将实际转运至PCI中心急诊科的时间与通过地图软件确定的预测转运时间进行比较,前提是EMT-Ds/PCPs走直接路径。最后,我们记录了预先定义的具有临床重要意义的事件和高级护理干预措施。

结果

分别有27例、51例和11例患者采用了路径1、路径2和路径3。路径1的中位转运时间为到达最近的非PCI中心急诊科需6(四分位间距[IQR]为5)分钟,到达PCI中心急诊科需66(IQR为45)分钟,而若EMT-Ds/PCPs走直接路径,预测的到达PCI中心急诊科的中位时间为13(IQR为7)分钟。路径2的中位转运时间为12(IQR为8)分钟,而若未与EMT-P/ACP会合,预测的中位时间为11(IQR为6)分钟。路径3的中位转运时间为7分钟(IQR为5)。3例患者发生了院外心脏骤停;1例需要多巴胺治疗,另外4例因低血压接受了生理盐水推注。

结论

如果EMT-Ds/PCPs绕过非PCI中心急诊科,可能会大幅节省时间,且预测转运至PCI中心急诊科的时间仅小幅增加(约7分钟)。与EMT-P/ACP会合似乎并不会大幅增加转运时间。鉴于具有临床重要意义的事件发生率相对较低,我们的研究结果表明,对于选定的STEMI患者,EMT-D/PCP绕过至PCI中心急诊科可能是安全有效的。

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