Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Kanazawa University Hospital, Kanazawa, Japan.
Resuscitation. 2019 Mar;136:38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.11.014. Epub 2018 Nov 15.
The impact of prehospital physician care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) on long-term neurological outcome is unclear. We aimed to determine the association between emergency medical services (EMS) physician-led cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus paramedic-led CPR and neurologically intact survival after OHCA.
We assessed 613,251 patients using All-Japan Utstein Registry data from 2011 to 2015 retrospectively. The main outcome measure was 1-month neurologically intact survival after OHCA, defined as Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 (CPC 1-2).
Before propensity score matching, the 1-month CPC 1-2 rate was significantly higher in EMS physician-led CPR than in paramedic-led CPR [5.7% (1114/19,551) vs. 2.5% (14,859/593,700), P < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.40-1.61]. After propensity score matching, EMS physician-led CPR showed more favourable neurological outcomes than paramedic-led CPR [6.0% (996/16,612) vs. 4.6% (766/16,612), P < 0.001; aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.29-1.60]. In most subgroup analyses after matching, physician-led CPR had higher 1-month CPC 1-2 rates than paramedic-led CPR did; however, 1-month CPC 1-2 rates were similar between the two CPR configurations for patients aged <18 years (5.6% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.10; aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.46-1.47) and those who received bystander defibrillation (26.3% vs. 21.5%; P = 0.10; aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.53).
Within the limitations of this retrospective observational research, EMS physician-led CPR for OHCA was associated with improved 1-month neurologically intact survival compared with paramedic-led CPR. However, neurologically intact survival was similar for patients aged <18 years and those receiving bystander defibrillation.
院前医师对院外心脏骤停(OHCA)的治疗对长期神经预后的影响尚不清楚。我们旨在确定急救医疗服务(EMS)医师主导的心肺复苏(CPR)与护理人员主导的 CPR 与 OHCA 后神经完整存活之间的关联。
我们使用 2011 年至 2015 年的全日本 Utstein 注册数据回顾性评估了 613251 例患者。主要结局指标为 OHCA 后 1 个月的神经完整存活,定义为脑功能状态分类 1 或 2(CPC 1-2)。
在进行倾向评分匹配之前,EMS 医师主导的 CPR 后 1 个月 CPC 1-2 率明显高于护理人员主导的 CPR [5.7%(1114/19551)与 2.5%(14859/593700),P<0.001;调整后的优势比(aOR),1.50;95%置信区间(CI),1.40-1.61]。在倾向评分匹配后,EMS 医师主导的 CPR 显示出比护理人员主导的 CPR 更有利的神经结局[6.0%(996/16612)与 4.6%(766/16612),P<0.001;aOR,1.44;95%CI,1.29-1.60]。在匹配后的大多数亚组分析中,医师主导的 CPR 后 1 个月 CPC 1-2 率高于护理人员主导的 CPR;然而,对于年龄<18 岁的患者(5.6%比 8.2%,P=0.10;aOR,0.82;95%CI,0.46-1.47)和接受旁观者除颤的患者(26.3%比 21.5%,P=0.10;aOR,1.07;95%CI,0.74-1.53),两种 CPR 模式的 1 个月 CPC 1-2 率相似。
在这项回顾性观察性研究的限制范围内,与护理人员主导的 CPR 相比,EMS 医师主导的 OHCA 心肺复苏与改善 1 个月神经完整存活有关。然而,对于年龄<18 岁的患者和接受旁观者除颤的患者,神经完整存活率相似。