NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Pre-hospital Emergency Care Australia and New Zealand (PEC-ANZ), Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
Med J Aust. 2021 Sep 6;215(5):222-227. doi: 10.5694/mja2.51139. Epub 2021 Jun 14.
To compare the frequency and outcomes of cardiac arrests in general practice clinics with those of paramedic-witnessed cardiac arrests.
DESIGN, SETTING: Retrospective study; analysis of Victorian Ambulance Cardiac Arrest Registry data, 1 January 2000 - 30 December 2019.
Patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrests whom emergency medical services staff attempted to resuscitate.
Survival to hospital discharge.
6363 cases of cardiac arrest were identified: 216 in general practice clinics (3.4%) and 6147 witnessed by paramedics (96.6%). The proportion of patients presenting with initial shockable rhythms was larger in clinic (126 patients, 58.3%) than paramedic-witnessed cases (1929, 31.4%). The proportion of general practice clinic cases in which defibrillation was provided in the clinic increased from 2 of 37 in 2000-2003 (5%) to 19 of 57 patients in 2016-2019 (33%); survival increased from 7 of 37 (19%) to 23 of 57 patients (40%). For patients with initial shockable rhythms, 57 of 126 in clinic cases (45%) and 1221 of 1929 people in paramedic-witnessed cases (63.3%) survived to hospital discharge; of 47 general practice patients defibrillated by clinic staff, 27 survived (57%). For patients with initial shockable rhythms, the odds of survival were greater following paramedic-witnessed events (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.39; 95% CI, 2.08-5.54) or general clinic arrests with defibrillation by clinic staff (aOR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.03-4.83) than for general practice clinic arrests in which arriving paramedics provided defibrillation.
Emergency medical services should be alerted as soon as possible after people experience heart attack warning symptoms. Automated external defibrillators should be standard equipment in general practice clinics, enabling prompt defibrillation, which may substantially reduce the risk of death for people in cardiac arrest.
比较全科诊所中心律失常骤停与急救人员目击的心律失常骤停的频率和结局。
设计、地点:回顾性研究;维多利亚救护车心脏骤停登记处的数据分析,2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 30 日。
接受紧急医疗服务人员复苏尝试的非创伤性心律失常骤停患者。
存活至出院。
共确定 6363 例心律失常骤停病例:216 例发生在全科诊所(3.4%),6147 例由急救人员目击(96.6%)。在初始可除颤节律的患者中,诊所(126 例,58.3%)的比例大于急救人员目击的病例(1929 例,31.4%)。在诊所提供除颤的全科诊所病例比例从 2000-2003 年的 37 例中的 2 例(5%)增加到 2016-2019 年的 57 例中的 19 例(33%);存活率从 37 例中的 7 例(19%)增加到 57 例中的 23 例(40%)。对于初始可除颤节律的患者,诊所病例中有 126 例中的 57 例(45%)和急救人员目击的病例中有 1929 例中的 1221 例(63.3%)存活至出院;在 47 例由诊所工作人员除颤的全科患者中,有 27 例存活(57%)。对于初始可除颤节律的患者,与急救人员目击事件(调整比值比[aOR],3.39;95%CI,2.08-5.54)或有诊所工作人员进行除颤的全科诊所骤停相比,由诊所工作人员进行除颤的全科诊所骤停存活的几率更大(aOR,2.23;95%CI,1.03-4.83)。
一旦患者出现心肌梗死警告症状,应尽快向急救医疗服务人员发出警报。自动体外除颤器应成为全科诊所的标准设备,以便能够迅速除颤,这可能会大大降低心律失常骤停患者的死亡风险。