Kudenchuk Peter J, Stuart Russell, Husain Sofia, Fahrenbruch Carol, Eisenberg Mickey
University of Washington Department of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States; King County Emergency Medical Services, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, Seattle, WA, United States.
University of Virginia Health System, Department of Anesthesiology, Charlottesville, VA 22903, United States.
Resuscitation. 2015 Dec;97:97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.08.025. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
We evaluated the frequency and effectiveness of basic and advanced life support (ALS) interventions by medical professionals when out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occurred in ambulatory healthcare clinics before emergency medical services (EMS) arrival.
Non-traumatic OHCAs in adults were systematically characterized over a 15 year period by their occurrence in clinics, at home, or in non-medical public locations, and outcomes compared between matched cohorts from each group.
Among 7784 patients, 6098 OHCA occurred at home, 1612 in non-medical public locations and 74 in clinics. Compared to non-medical public locations, clinic patients with OHCA were older, more often women and more frequently shocked; clinic arrests were more often witnessed, less likely to be of cardiac cause and to occur before EMS arrival. Compared to home, more clinic arrests were witnessed, occurred after EMS arrival, had bystander CPR, shockable rhythms and were defibrillated. When OHCA occurred before EMS arrival, 51 of 56 clinic patients (91%) received CPR, a defibrillator applied to 23 (41%), 17 (30%) were shocked, 4 (7%) intubated, and 7 (13%) received intravenous medications from facility personnel. Of these, only pre-EMS defibrillator use was associated with improved outcome. Among matched patients, OHCA survival was higher in clinics than at home (42% vs 26%, p=0.029), but comparable to other public locations.
Survival from OHCA in clinics was comparable to non-medical public locations, and higher than at home. Alongside CPR, use of defibrillators was associated with improved survival and worth prioritizing over other interventions before EMS arrival regardless of OHCA location.
我们评估了在紧急医疗服务(EMS)到达之前,门诊医疗诊所发生院外心脏骤停(OHCA)时,医学专业人员进行基本和高级生命支持(ALS)干预的频率和效果。
在15年期间,对成人非创伤性OHCA进行系统特征分析,根据其发生在诊所、家中或非医疗公共场所进行分类,并比较每组匹配队列的结果。
在7784例患者中,6098例OHCA发生在家中,1612例发生在非医疗公共场所,74例发生在诊所。与非医疗公共场所相比,诊所发生OHCA的患者年龄更大,女性更多,电击次数更多;诊所心脏骤停更常被目击,心脏原因导致的可能性更小,且更常发生在EMS到达之前。与家中相比,诊所心脏骤停更常被目击,发生在EMS到达之后,有旁观者进行心肺复苏(CPR),有可电击心律且接受了除颤。当OHCA在EMS到达之前发生时,56例诊所患者中有51例(91%)接受了CPR,23例(41%)使用了除颤器,17例(30%)接受了电击,4例(7%)进行了插管,7例(13%)接受了医疗机构人员给予的静脉用药。其中,仅在EMS到达前使用除颤器与改善结局相关。在匹配的患者中,诊所OHCA的生存率高于家中(42%对26%,p = 0.029),但与其他公共场所相当。
诊所OHCA的生存率与非医疗公共场所相当,高于家中。除CPR外,使用除颤器与提高生存率相关,且无论OHCA发生在何处,在EMS到达之前,使用除颤器比其他干预措施更值得优先考虑。