Eitel D R, Guzzardi L J, Stein S E, Drawbaugh R E, Hess D R, Walton S L
Ann Emerg Med. 1987 May;16(5):531-4. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(87)80678-9.
This study evaluated the efficacy of prehospital external cardiac pacing in cardiac arrest patients. From October 1984 to June 1985, 91 patients were paced. Mean time from cardiac arrest to advanced life support (ALS) intervention in this metropolitan-rural ALS system was 14.5 minutes. Electrical capture occurred in 85 (93%), mechanical capture (pulses) occurred in ten (11%), and a measurable blood pressure occurred in three (3%) of the 91 patients. Despite a high rate of electrical capture, palpable pulses were produced only in 11%, and no patients survived to be discharged from the hospital. There was no difference in the frequency of electrical capture, palpable pulses, or outcome for patients receiving pharmacologic intervention before or after pacing. Likewise there was no difference in the frequency of electrical capture, palpable pulses, or outcome for patients receiving ALS therapy within or after ten minutes of their arrest. Although we found that external cardiac pacing was easily used in the prehospital setting, pacing did not result in any increase in survival in cardiac arrest patients.
本研究评估了院外体外心脏起搏对心脏骤停患者的疗效。1984年10月至1985年6月,对91例患者进行了起搏治疗。在这个城乡结合的高级生命支持(ALS)系统中,从心脏骤停到ALS干预的平均时间为14.5分钟。91例患者中,85例(93%)出现电捕获,10例(11%)出现机械捕获(脉搏),3例(3%)出现可测量的血压。尽管电捕获率很高,但只有11%的患者产生了可触及的脉搏,且没有患者存活至出院。起搏前或起搏后接受药物干预的患者,在电捕获频率、可触及脉搏或结局方面没有差异。同样,在心脏骤停后10分钟内或10分钟后接受ALS治疗的患者,在电捕获频率、可触及脉搏或结局方面也没有差异。虽然我们发现体外心脏起搏在院外环境中易于使用,但起搏并未使心脏骤停患者的生存率有所提高。