Suppr超能文献

院外心脏骤停后旁观者启动心肺复苏和使用自动体外除颤器:揭示城乡范围内护理和生存差距。

Bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Uncovering disparities in care and survival across the urban-rural spectrum.

机构信息

Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2022 Jun;175:150-158. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.04.014. Epub 2022 Apr 22.

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the association between bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), automated external defibrillator (AED) use, and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) across the urban-rural spectrum.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 325,477 adult OHCAs within the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival from 2013 to 2019. Bystander interventions were categorized into no bystander intervention, bystander CPR alone, and bystander AED use (with or without CPR). The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between bystander interventions and survival by geographical status (urban, suburban, large rural, small town, or rural).

RESULTS

Bystander CPR alone occurred most often in rural areas (50.8%), and least often in urban areas (35.4%). Bystander AED use in public settings was similar across the urban-rural spectrum (10.5-13.1%). Survival with good neurological outcome varied for urban (8.1%), suburban (7.7%), large rural (9.1%), small town (7.1%), and rural areas (6.1%). In comparison to no bystander intervention, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for bystander AED use and survival were 2.57 (2.37-2.79) in urban areas, 2.58 (1.81-3.67) in suburban areas, 1.99 (1.44-2.76) in large rural areas, 1.90 (1.27-2.86) in small towns, and 3.05 (1.99-4.68) in rural areas. Bystander CPR alone was also associated with survival in all areas (adjusted odds ratio range: 1.29-1.45). There was no strong evidence of interaction between bystander interventions and geographical status on the primary outcome (p = 0.63).

CONCLUSION

Bystander CPR and AED use are associated with positive clinical outcomes after OHCA in all areas along the urban-rural spectrum.

摘要

目的

评估旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)、体外自动除颤器(AED)使用与院外心脏骤停(OHCA)后生存之间的关联,该研究横跨城乡范围。

方法

这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2013 年至 2019 年心脏骤停注册研究中 325477 例成人 OHCA 患者。旁观者干预措施分为无旁观者干预、旁观者单独 CPR 和旁观者 AED 使用(有无 CPR)。主要结局是存活至出院且神经功能良好。多变量逻辑回归用于评估地理状况(城市、郊区、大农村、小镇或农村)下旁观者干预措施与生存之间的关联。

结果

旁观者单独 CPR 最常发生在农村地区(50.8%),而在城市地区最不常见(35.4%)。公共场合旁观者使用 AED 的情况在城乡范围内相似(10.5%-13.1%)。存活至出院且神经功能良好的比例因城市(8.1%)、郊区(7.7%)、大农村(9.1%)、小镇(7.1%)和农村地区(6.1%)而异。与无旁观者干预相比,旁观者 AED 使用与生存相关的校正比值比(95%置信区间)在城市地区为 2.57(2.37-2.79),在郊区为 2.58(1.81-3.67),在大农村地区为 1.99(1.44-2.76),在小镇为 1.90(1.27-2.86),在农村地区为 3.05(1.99-4.68)。旁观者单独 CPR 也与所有地区的生存相关(校正比值比范围:1.29-1.45)。旁观者干预措施与地理状况对主要结局无明显交互作用(p=0.63)。

结论

在城乡范围内的所有地区,旁观者 CPR 和 AED 使用与 OHCA 后临床结局改善相关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验