Olsen J-A, Lerner E B, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer M A, Westfall M, van Grunsven P M, Travis D T, Herken U R, Brunborg C, Wik L
Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Prehospital Emergency Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2016 Feb;60(2):222-9. doi: 10.1111/aas.12605. Epub 2015 Aug 27.
The Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC) Trial found equivalent survival in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who received integrated load-distributing band CPR (iA-CPR) compared to manual CPR (M-CPR). We hypothesized that as chest compression duration increased, iA-CPR provided a survival benefit when compared to M-CPR.
A pre-planned secondary analysis of OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology from the randomized CIRC trial. Chest compressions duration was defined as the total number of minutes spent on compressions during resuscitation and identified from transthoracic impedance and accelerometer data recorded by the EMS defibrillator. Logistic regression was used to model the interaction between treatment and duration of chest compressions and was covariate-adjusted for trial site, patient age, witnessed arrest, and initial shockable rhythm. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge.
We enrolled 4231 subjects and of those, 2012 iA-CPR and 2002 M-CPR had complete outcome and duration of chest compressions data. While covariate-adjusted odds ratio for survival to hospital discharge was 1.86 in favor of iA-CPR (95% CI 1.16-3.0), there was an interaction between duration and study arm. When this was factored into the multivariate equation, the odds ratio for survival to hospital discharge showed a significant benefit for iA-CPR vs. M-CPR for chest compression duration greater than 16.5 min.
After adjusting for compression duration and duration-treatment interaction, iA-CPR showed a significant benefit for survival to hospital discharge vs. M-CPR in patients with OHCA if chest compression duration was longer than 16.5 min.
循环改善复苏护理(CIRC)试验发现,与手动心肺复苏(M-CPR)相比,接受集成负载分配带心肺复苏(iA-CPR)的成年院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者生存率相当。我们假设,随着胸外按压持续时间的增加,与M-CPR相比,iA-CPR能带来生存获益。
对随机CIRC试验中推测为心脏病因的OHCA进行预先计划的二次分析。胸外按压持续时间定义为复苏期间按压所花费的总分钟数,通过急救医疗服务除颤器记录的经胸阻抗和加速度计数据确定。采用逻辑回归对治疗与胸外按压持续时间之间的相互作用进行建模,并对试验地点、患者年龄、目击骤停和初始可电击心律进行协变量调整。主要结局是存活至出院。
我们纳入了4231名受试者,其中2012例接受iA-CPR和2002例接受M-CPR的患者有完整的结局和胸外按压持续时间数据。虽然调整协变量后存活至出院的优势比为1.86,支持iA-CPR(95%CI 1.16-3.0),但持续时间与研究组之间存在相互作用。当将此因素纳入多变量方程时,对于胸外按压持续时间大于16.5分钟的患者,存活至出院的优势比显示iA-CPR相对于M-CPR有显著获益。
在调整按压持续时间和持续时间-治疗相互作用后,如果胸外按压持续时间超过16.5分钟,对于OHCA患者,iA-CPR相对于M-CPR在存活至出院方面显示出显著获益。