Mir Tanveer, Qureshi Waqas T, Uddin Mohammed, Soubani Ayman, Saydain Ghulam, Rab Tanveer, Kakouros Nikolaos
Internal Medicine, Detroit Medical Center Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Division of Cardiology, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Worcester, MA, USA.
Resuscitation. 2022 Jan;170:100-106. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.11.009. Epub 2021 Nov 19.
Outcomes of cardiac arrest (CA) remain dismal despite therapeutic advances. Literature is limited regarding outcomes of CA in emergency departments (ED).
To study the possible causes, predictors, and outcomes of CA in ED and in-patient settings throughout the United States (US).
Data from the US national emergency department sample (NEDS) was analyzed for the episodes of CA for 2016-2018. In-hospital CA was divided into in-patient (IPCA) and in the ED (EDCA). Only patients who had cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) within the hospital were included in the study (out-of-hospital were excluded).
A total of 1,068,847 CA (mean age 63.7 ± 19.4 years, 24%females), of whom 325,062 (30.4%) EDCA and 177,104 (16.6%) IPCA were included in the study. Patients without CPR, 743,785 (69.6%), were excluded. Survival was higher among IPCA 55,821 (31.6%) than the EDCA 32,516 (10%). IPCA encounters had multifactorial associated etiologies including respiratory failure (73%), acidosis (38.7%) sepsis (36.8%) and ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) (7.3%). Majority of ED arrests (67.1%) had no possible identifiable cause. The predominant known causes include intoxication (7.5%), trauma (6.4%), respiratory failure (5%), and STEMI (2.7%). Cardiovascular interventions had significant survival benefits in IPCA on univariate logistic regression after coarsened exact matching for comorbidities. IPCA had higher intervention rates than EDCA. For all live discharges, a total of 40% of patients were discharged to hospice.
Survival remains dismal among CA patients especially those occurring in the ED. Given that there are considerable variations in the etiology between the two studied cohorts, more research is required to improve the understanding of these factors, which may improve survival outcomes.
尽管治疗技术有所进步,但心脏骤停(CA)的预后仍然很差。关于急诊科(ED)心脏骤停预后的文献有限。
研究美国各地急诊科和住院环境中心脏骤停的可能原因、预测因素和预后。
分析了美国国家急诊科样本(NEDS)中2016 - 2018年心脏骤停事件的数据。院内心脏骤停分为住院期间(IPCA)和急诊科(EDCA)发生的心脏骤停。本研究仅纳入在医院内接受心肺复苏(CPR)的患者(排除院外发生的情况)。
共有1,068,847例心脏骤停患者(平均年龄63.7±19.4岁,24%为女性),其中325,062例(30.4%)为EDCA,177,104例(16.6%)为IPCA纳入研究。未接受心肺复苏的患者743,785例(69.6%)被排除。IPCA患者的生存率为55,821例(31.6%),高于EDCA患者的32,516例(10%)。IPCA病例有多种相关病因,包括呼吸衰竭(73%)、酸中毒(38.7%)、脓毒症(36.8%)和ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)(7.3%)。大多数急诊科心脏骤停(67.1%)没有可识别的可能原因。已知的主要原因包括中毒(7.5%)、创伤(6.4%)、呼吸衰竭(5%)和STEMI(2.7%)。在对合并症进行粗精确匹配后的单因素逻辑回归分析中,心血管干预对IPCA患者的生存有显著益处。IPCA的干预率高于EDCA。在所有存活出院患者中,共有40%的患者出院后进入临终关怀机构。
心脏骤停患者的生存率仍然很低,尤其是在急诊科发生的心脏骤停。鉴于两个研究队列的病因存在相当大的差异,需要更多的研究来增进对这些因素的理解,这可能会改善生存结果。