Li Xingxiang, Teng Feiyue, Xu Ping, Li Minghua, Liu Rongjiao, Fang Ping, Hu Jiawen
Department of Emergency, Shanghai Medical Emergency Center, Shanghai 200030, China (Li XX, Teng FY, Xu P, Li MH); Department of Gerontology, Shanghai Eighth People's Hospital, Shanghai 200235, China (Liu RJ); Department of Endocrinology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200065, China (Fang P); Department of Emergency, Tongji Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 200065, China (Hu JW). Corresponding author: Hu Jiawen, Email:
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2017 Oct;29(10):871-876. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2017.10.002.
To investigate the epidemiological features of out-of-hospital patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) in Shanghai and to analysis factors associated with outcomes, and to provide evidence for improving the success rate of VF.
The data of patients with VF admitted to Shanghai Medical Emergency Center from January 2013 to December 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. All the data were recorded including the clinical data, medical service time, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at scene/en route, survival to hospital discharge. Factors that associated with successful resuscitation were analyzed by Logistic regression.
From 2013 to 2016, 21 096 patients with suspected cardiac arrest were admitted to the Shanghai Medical Emergency Center. After excluding ventricular tachycardia (13 cases) and ventricular asystole (20 995 cases), 88 patients with VF were enrolled, with 62 male and 26 female; the average age was (63.22±16.15) years old. While bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed in only 21 cases (23.86%). Fifty-seven cases occurred during the day (08:00-20:00), while 31 cases occurred in the night. And the average emergency response time was (6.47±4.13) minutes; the average on-site time was (14.76±10.88) minutes; the average transport to hospital time was (5.95±4.00) minutes. There were no significant differences in response time, on-site time and transport to hospital time each year, and there were no significant differences in emergency medical service time between day and night either. From 2013 to 2016, prehospital successful resuscitation rate was decreased by years [95.65% (22/23), 87.50% (14/16), 83.33% (20/24) vs. 80.00% (20/25), respectively, χ = 1.895, P = 0.595]. Survival to hospital discharge rate was increased by years [21.74% (5/23), 31.25% (5/16), 37.50% (9/24), 40.00% (10/25), respectively, χ = 2.862, P = 0.413]. The success rate of prehospital resuscitation for patients with 1, 2, ≥3 defibrillation was 35.23% (31/88), 23.08% (12/52), 89.19% (33/37), respectively (χ = 42.811, P = 0.000). The on-site time in successful final resuscitation group was shorter than that in final resuscitation failure group (minutes: 10.85±8.83 vs. 16.79±11.36, t = 2.367, P = 0.020), the ROSC time in successful final resuscitation group was shorter than that of final resuscitation failure group (minutes: 3.24±3.17 vs. 7.43±6.64, t = 3.175, P = 0.002). It was shown by Logistic regression that long ROSC time was the risk factor for final resuscitation failure [odds ratio (OR) = 0.771, P = 0.024]. Gender, age, availability of witnesses CPR, call time, emergency response time, on-site time and transport to hospital time had no significant impact on the prehospital successful resuscitation and final successful resuscitation. In prehospital successful resuscitation group, there was significant difference in survival to hospital discharge rate among different defibrillation times group [48.39% (15/31), 58.33% (7/12) vs. 21.21% (7/33), χ = 7.460, P = 0.024].
From 2013 to 2016, there were no significant changes in the emergency response time, prehospital successful resuscitation rate and survival to hospital discharge rate of patients with VF in Shanghai. Though, repeated defibrillation could significantly increased prehospital successful resuscitation rate, multiple defibrillation indicated decline of survival to hospital discharge rate in prehospital successful resuscitation group. Additionally, long on-site time and long ROSC time indicated poor prognosis.
探讨上海市院外心室颤动(VF)患者的流行病学特征,分析影响预后的因素,为提高VF复苏成功率提供依据。
回顾性分析2013年1月至2016年12月上海市医疗急救中心收治的VF患者资料。记录所有患者的临床资料、出诊时间、现场/途中自主循环恢复(ROSC)情况、出院生存率。采用Logistic回归分析复苏成功的相关因素。
2013年至2016年,上海市医疗急救中心共收治疑似心脏骤停患者21096例。排除室性心动过速(13例)和心室停搏(20995例)后,纳入88例VF患者,其中男性62例,女性26例;平均年龄(63.22±16.15)岁。仅21例(23.86%)患者接受了旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)。57例发生在白天(08:00 - 20:00),31例发生在夜间。平均急救反应时间为(6.47±4.13)分钟;平均现场时间为(14.76±10.88)分钟;平均转运至医院时间为(5.95±4.00)分钟。每年的反应时间、现场时间和转运至医院时间差异无统计学意义,昼夜急救医疗服务时间差异也无统计学意义。2013年至2016年,院前复苏成功率逐年下降[分别为95.65%(22/23)、87.50%(14/16)、83.33%(20/24)和80.00%(20/25),χ² = 1.895,P = 0.595]。出院生存率逐年上升[分别为21.74%(5/23)、31.25%(5/16)、37.50%(9/24)、40.00%(10/25),χ² = 2.862,P = 0.413]。1次、2次、≥3次除颤患者的院前复苏成功率分别为35.23%(31/88)、23.08%(12/52)、89.19%(33/37)(χ² = 42.811,P = 0.000)。最终复苏成功组的现场时间短于最终复苏失败组(分钟:10.85±8.83 vs. 16.79±11.36,t = 2.367,P = 0.020),最终复苏成功组的ROSC时间短于最终复苏失败组(分钟:3.24±3.17 vs. 7.43±6.64,t = 3.175,P = 0.002)。Logistic回归分析显示,较长的ROSC时间是最终复苏失败的危险因素[比值比(OR) = 0.771,P = 0.024]。性别、年龄、是否有旁观者CPR、呼叫时间、急救反应时间、现场时间和转运至医院时间对院前复苏成功和最终复苏成功无显著影响。在院前复苏成功组中,不同除颤次数组的出院生存率差异有统计学意义[48.39%(15/31)、58.33%(7/12)和21.21%(7/33),χ² = 7.460,P = 0.024]。
2013年至2016年,上海市VF患者的急救反应时间、院前复苏成功率和出院生存率无显著变化。尽管重复除颤可显著提高院前复苏成功率,但多次除颤提示院前复苏成功组出院生存率下降。此外,较长的现场时间和ROSC时间提示预后不良。