Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1812 Ashland Ave. Suite 110, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States.
University of Washington School of Public Health, 6200 NE 74th St., Building 29, Suite 250, Seattle, WA 98115, United States.
Resuscitation. 2019 Apr;137:168-174. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.007. Epub 2019 Feb 18.
An increasing proportion of patients with OHCA present with non-shockable rhythms, among whom the benefit from AED application is not known.
We performed a retrospective analysis of adults with non-traumatic, public, bystander-witnessed, non-shockable OHCA occurring between 2005-2015 at 9 locations participating in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. Non-shockable arrest was defined as when no shock was administered by a bystander applied AED and confirmed by the initial rhythm on EMS arrival. Outcomes were compared between patients with non-shockable OHCA in whom a bystander AED was or was not applied.
Among 2809 patients with non-shockable public, witnessed OHCA, 8.4% had an AED applied. CPR was more often performed in the AED-applied group (99% vs. 51% of patients, p < 0.001). Among patients in whom an AED was not applied, 39.8% had any pre-hospital ROSC, 29.6% had a pulse at ED arrival and 11.1% survived to hospital discharge compared to 44.1%, 29.6% and 9.7%, respectively with AED application. After adjustment for the Utstein variables excluding bystander CPR, the OR for survival to hospital discharge for AED application was 0.90 (95% CI:0.57-1.42); when adjusted for the higher frequency of CPR in the AED group the OR was 0.92 (95% CI:0.57-1.47).
The application of an AED in non-shockable public witnessed OHCA was associated with a higher frequency of bystander CPR. The probabilities of pre-hospital ROSC, pulse at ED arrival, and survival to hospital discharge were not altered by the application of an AED.
越来越多的心脏骤停患者表现为非颤动感心律失常,目前尚不清楚电除颤应用于此类患者的获益。
我们对 2005 年至 2015 年期间在参与复苏结果联盟的 9 个地点发生的非创伤性、公众目击、旁观者见证的非颤动感心脏骤停的成年人进行了回顾性分析。非颤动感骤停定义为旁观者应用电除颤且未进行除颤,并且在急救人员到达时初始节律证实为非颤动感骤停。比较了应用和未应用旁观者电除颤的非颤动感骤停患者的结局。
在 2809 例非创伤性公众目击的非颤动感心脏骤停患者中,8.4%应用了电除颤。电除颤应用组行心肺复苏的比例更高(99% vs. 51%的患者,p < 0.001)。在未应用电除颤的患者中,39.8%有任何院前自主循环恢复,29.6%有脉搏到达急诊室,11.1%存活至出院,而应用电除颤的患者分别为 44.1%、29.6%和 9.7%。在调整除旁观者心肺复苏外的乌斯太因变量后,电除颤应用患者存活至出院的比值比为 0.90(95%可信区间:0.57-1.42);当调整电除颤组更高频率的心肺复苏后,比值比为 0.92(95%可信区间:0.57-1.47)。
在非颤动感公众目击的心脏骤停中应用电除颤与旁观者心肺复苏的更高频率相关。电除颤的应用并未改变院前自主循环恢复、到达急诊室时有脉搏和存活至出院的概率。