Department of Stereotactic Neurosurgery, St. Barbara-Klinik Hamm-Heessen, Am Heessener Wald 1, 59073 Hamm, Germany.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Pain Therapy, Asklepios Klinikum Harburg, Eißendorfer Pferdeweg 52, 21075 Hamburg, Germany.
Resuscitation. 2020 Feb 1;147:57-64. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.012. Epub 2019 Dec 27.
To test the hypothesis that simultaneous mobile phone-based alerting of CPR-trained volunteers (Mobile-Rescuers) with Emergency Medical Service (EMS) teams leads to better outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims than EMS alerting alone.
The outcomes of 730 OHCA patients were retrospectively analysed, depending on who initiated CPR: Mobile-Rescuer-initiated-CPR (n = 94), EMS-initiated-CPR (n = 359), lay bystander-initiated-CPR (n = 277). An adjusted analysis of the intervention and their main outcomes (emergency response time, return of spontaneous circulation, hospital discharge rate, neurological outcomes) was performed (Propensity Score Method with patient matching).
Recruited and trained Mobile-Rescuers (n = 740) arrived at the scene in 46% of all triggered alarms. There was a significant difference in response time between Mobile-Rescuers (4 min) and EMS teams (7 min), (p < 0.001). Compared to EMS-initiated-CPR, Mobile-Rescuer-initiated-CPR patients more frequently showed a return of spontaneous circulation, but statistical significance was narrowly missed (p = 0.056). The hospital discharge rate was significantly higher with the Mobile-Rescuer (18%) vs. EMS (7%), (p = 0.049). Good neurological outcomes (Cerebral Performance Categories Score 1 and 2) were seen in 11% of Mobile-Rescuer patients and 4% of EMS patients (p = 0.165). There were no significant differences compared with lay bystander-initiated-CPR.
Simultaneous alerting of nearby CPR-trained volunteers complementary to professional EMS teams can reduce both the response time and resuscitation-free interval and might improve hospital discharge rate and neurological outcomes after OHCA.
验证以下假设,即通过移动设备向经过心肺复苏培训的志愿者(移动救援者)发出警报并与紧急医疗服务(EMS)团队同时行动,是否能改善院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的预后,优于仅由 EMS 发出警报。
回顾性分析了 730 例 OHCA 患者的结局,根据谁开始进行心肺复苏(CPR)进行分组:移动救援者开始-CPR(n=94)、EMS 开始-CPR(n=359)、非专业旁观者开始-CPR(n=277)。采用倾向评分法(患者匹配)对干预措施及其主要结局(急救反应时间、自主循环恢复、出院率、神经学结局)进行调整分析。
招募并培训的移动救援者(n=740)在所有触发警报中,有 46%在警报触发后 46%到达现场。移动救援者(4 分钟)和 EMS 团队(7 分钟)的反应时间有显著差异(p<0.001)。与 EMS 开始-CPR 相比,移动救援者开始-CPR 的患者更频繁地出现自主循环恢复,但未达到统计学意义(p=0.056)。移动救援者的出院率明显高于 EMS(18%比 7%)(p=0.049)。移动救援者患者中有 11%和 EMS 患者中有 4%的神经学结局良好(Cerebral Performance Categories 评分 1 和 2)(p=0.165)。与非专业旁观者开始-CPR 相比,无显著差异。
与专业 EMS 团队互补,同时向附近经过心肺复苏培训的志愿者发出警报,可以缩短急救反应时间和复苏无干预时间,并可能改善 OHCA 后出院率和神经学结局。