Division of Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Division of Cardiology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy; School of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Pavia; Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Jul 15;287:81-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.03.037. Epub 2019 Mar 20.
The role of load distributing band device (LDB, AutoPulse®, Zoll Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA, USA) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is still a matter of debate, with few studies reaching conflicting results available in literature. We sought to assess whether the use of the LBD device could affect survival to hospital discharge in the different Utstein categories.
All consecutive patients enrolled in our provincial cardiac arrest registry (Pavia CARe) from January 2015 to December 2017 were included and pre-hospital data were computed as well as survival to hospital discharge.
Among 1401 resuscitation attempts, the LDB device was used in 235 (17%) patients. The LDB device was significantly more used for shockable cardiac arrest (42.6% vs 13.7%, p < 0.001). The rate of ROSC and of survival to hospital discharge in the LDB group compared to the manual group was 40% vs 17% (p < 0.001) and 10% vs 7% (p = 0.2), respectively. However, after correction for independent predictors of LDB use, LDB device was a strong independent predictor of survival to hospital discharge only for non-shockable witnessed OHCA [n = 624/1401, OR 11.9 (95% CI 1.5-95.2), p = 0.02]. In this categories of patients LDB group showed longer resuscitation time [49.3 min (IQR 37-71) vs 23.6 (IQR 15-35), p < 0.001] and a higher rate of conversion to a shockable rhythm (33/83 = 40% vs 29/541 = 5%, p < 0.001).
Utstein categories-based analysis showed that the LDB device positively affect survival to hospital discharge for non-shockable witnessed cardiac arrests with a neutral effect for shockable rhythms.
在院外心脏骤停中,负载分配带装置(LDB,AutoPulse®,Zoll Medical Corporation,Chelmsford,MA,美国)的作用仍存在争议,文献中很少有研究得出相互矛盾的结果。我们试图评估 LDB 装置的使用是否会影响不同乌斯泰因类别患者的出院存活率。
我们从 2015 年 1 月至 2017 年 12 月纳入了我们省级心脏骤停登记处(Pavia CARe)中的所有连续患者,并计算了院前数据以及出院存活率。
在 1401 次复苏尝试中,有 235 名(17%)患者使用了 LDB 装置。LDB 装置在可电击性心脏骤停中的使用明显更多(42.6%对 13.7%,p<0.001)。LDB 组与手动组的 ROSC 率和出院存活率分别为 40%对 17%(p<0.001)和 10%对 7%(p=0.2)。然而,在校正 LDB 使用的独立预测因素后,LDB 装置仅对非可电击性目击性 OHCA [n=624/1401,OR 11.9(95%CI 1.5-95.2),p=0.02]是出院存活率的独立预测因素。在这些患者类别中,LDB 组的复苏时间更长[49.3 分钟(IQR 37-71)对 23.6 分钟(IQR 15-35),p<0.001],更有可能转为可电击节律(33/83=40%对 29/541=5%,p<0.001)。
基于乌斯泰因分类的分析表明,LDB 装置对非可电击性目击性心脏骤停的出院存活率有积极影响,对可电击性节律无影响。