Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan.
Center for Resuscitation Science, Department of Emergency Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
JAMA Surg. 2018 Jun 20;153(6):e180674. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0674.
Controversy remains as to whether advanced life support (ALS) or basic life support (BLS) is superior for critically ill and injured patients, including out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and major trauma, in the prehospital setting.
To assess whether prehospital ALS should be provided for traumatic OHCA and who should perform it.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Japanese government-managed nationwide population-based registry data of patients with OHCA transported to an emergency hospital were analyzed. Patients who experienced traumatic OHCA following a traffic collision from 2013 to 2014 were included. Patients provided prehospital ALS by a physician were compared with both patients provided ALS by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel and patients with only BLS. The data were analyzed on May 1, 2017.
Advanced life support by physician, ALS by EMS personnel, or BLS only.
The primary outcome was 1-month survival. The secondary outcomes were prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic outcomes with the Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2.
A total of 4382 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [22.2] years; 67.9% male); 828 (18.9%) received prehospital ALS by physician, 1591 (36.3%) received prehospital ALS by EMS personnel, and 1963 (44.8%) received BLS only. Among these patients, 96 (2.2%) survived 1 month after OHCA, including 26 of 828 (3.1%) for ALS by physician, 25 of 1591 (1.6%) for ALS by EMS personnel, and 45 of 1963 (2.3%) for BLS. After adjusting for potential confounders using multivariable logistic regression, ALS by physician was significantly associated with higher odds for 1-month survival compared with both ALS by EMS personnel and BLS (adjusted OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.20-3.78; and adjusted OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.14-3.25; respectively), whereas there was no significant difference between ALS by EMS personnel and BLS (adjusted OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51). A propensity score-matched analysis in the ALS cohort showed that ALS by physician was associated with increased chance of 1-month survival compared with ALS by EMS personnel (risk ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.01-3.97; P = .04). This association was consistent across a variety of sensitivity analyses.
In traumatic OHCA, ALS by physician was associated with increased chance of 1-month survival compared with both ALS by EMS personnel and BLS.
对于危重病患者,包括院外心脏骤停(OHCA)和重大创伤,在院前环境中,高级生命支持(ALS)还是基本生命支持(BLS)更优,仍存在争议。
评估在创伤性 OHCA 中是否应提供院前 ALS,以及应由谁来提供。
设计、地点和参与者:分析了日本政府管理的全国范围内基于人群的 OHCA 患者登记数据,这些患者被送往急诊医院。纳入了 2013 年至 2014 年因交通碰撞导致 OHCA 的创伤性 OHCA 患者。比较了接受医生提供的院前 ALS 的患者与接受 EMS 人员提供的 ALS 患者和仅接受 BLS 的患者。数据分析于 2017 年 5 月 1 日进行。
医生提供的 ALS、EMS 人员提供的 ALS 或仅提供 BLS。
主要结局是 1 个月的生存率。次要结局是院前自主循环恢复和格拉斯哥-匹兹堡脑功能分类评分 1 或 2 的良好神经功能结局。
共纳入 4382 例患者(平均[标准差]年龄,57.5[22.2]岁;67.9%为男性);828 例(18.9%)接受了医生提供的院前 ALS,1591 例(36.3%)接受了 EMS 人员提供的院前 ALS,1963 例(44.8%)仅接受了 BLS。在这些患者中,有 96 例(2.2%)在 OHCA 后 1 个月存活,其中 26 例(3.1%)为医生提供的 ALS,25 例(1.6%)为 EMS 人员提供的 ALS,45 例(2.3%)为 BLS。使用多变量逻辑回归调整潜在混杂因素后,与 ALS 由 EMS 人员和 BLS 相比,医生提供的 ALS 与 1 个月生存率的更高几率显著相关(调整后的比值比,2.13;95%CI,1.20-3.78;和调整后的比值比,1.94;95%CI,1.14-3.25;分别),而 ALS 由 EMS 人员和 BLS 之间没有显著差异(调整后的比值比,0.91;95%CI,0.54-1.51)。在 ALS 队列中进行的倾向评分匹配分析表明,与 ALS 由 EMS 人员相比,医生提供的 ALS 与 1 个月生存率的提高几率相关(风险比,2.00;95%CI,1.01-3.97;P=0.04)。这种关联在各种敏感性分析中是一致的。
在创伤性 OHCA 中,与 ALS 由 EMS 人员和 BLS 相比,医生提供的 ALS 与 1 个月生存率的提高几率相关。