Suppr超能文献

旁观者放置自动体外除颤器与院外心脏骤停结局:一项2021年至2022年倾向评分匹配队列研究

Bystander placement of automated external defibrillators and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: a propensity score-matched cohort study between 2021 and 2022.

作者信息

Omatsu Kentaro, Yamashita Akira, Inaba Hideo

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, 1398 Shimami-cho, Kita-ku, Niigata-shi, Niigata, 950-3198, Japan.

Department of Cardiology, Noto General Hospital, Nanao, Japan.

出版信息

Intern Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 9. doi: 10.1007/s11739-025-03995-3.

Abstract

Bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) placement is expected to benefit all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases, even in the absence of prehospital defibrillation. This study investigated the factors influencing bystander-AED placement and evaluated its impact on neurologically favourable outcomes in bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCA cases receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This retrospective cohort study analysed nationwide EMS-transported emergency and OHCA databases (2021-2022), including 22,443 bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCAs with bystander CPR, of which 10,324 involved bystander-AED placement. AEDs were placed by bystanders in 25,333 (10.6%) of 238,871 non-EMS-witnessed OHCA cases. Logistic regression showed the associations of prehospital defibrillation, no bystander CPR, male sex, outdoor location, at-home setting, and family- or friend/colleague-witnessed OHCA with lower bystander-AED placement rates. In contrast, rural municipality EMS, daytime, DA-CPR attempt, presumed cardiac aetiology, shockable initial rhythm, conventional bystander CPR, and care/medical facilities were associated with higher rates. Neurologically favourable survival was 2.2% for bystander-AED and 2.3% for EMS-AED placement cases within care/medical facilities, compared to 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively, outside these facilities. In both logistic regression analyses after propensity score matching, bystander-AED placement improved outcomes of OHCA outside care/medical facilities only in the presence of prehospital defibrillation (adjusted odds ratio 1.24 [1.04-1.48]) but worsened outcomes of OHCA within the facilities in the absence of prehospital defibrillation (0.73 [0.54-0.99]). Bystander-AED placement was common in care/medical facilities but had limited benefits. The effectiveness of bystander-AED placement depends on location, early prehospital defibrillation, and responder training.

摘要

预计旁观者自动体外除颤器(AED)的放置将使所有院外心脏骤停(OHCA)病例受益,即使在没有院前除颤的情况下也是如此。本研究调查了影响旁观者AED放置的因素,并评估了其对接受旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)的旁观者目击的院外OHCA病例神经功能良好结局的影响。这项回顾性队列研究分析了全国范围内由紧急医疗服务(EMS)转运的急诊和OHCA数据库(2021 - 2022年),包括22443例旁观者目击的院外OHCA且有旁观者进行CPR的病例,其中10324例涉及旁观者AED放置。在238871例非EMS目击的OHCA病例中,旁观者放置AED的有25333例(10.6%)。逻辑回归显示,院前除颤、无旁观者CPR、男性、户外地点、在家中发生、以及由家人或朋友/同事目击的OHCA与较低的旁观者AED放置率相关。相比之下,农村地区的EMS、白天、进行直接按压式心肺复苏(DA - CPR)尝试、推测为心脏病因、可电击的初始心律、传统旁观者CPR以及护理/医疗设施与较高的放置率相关。在护理/医疗设施内,旁观者AED放置病例的神经功能良好生存率为2.2%,EMS - AED放置病例为2.3%,而在这些设施外分别为19.5%和11.6%。在倾向得分匹配后的两项逻辑回归分析中,旁观者AED放置仅在有院前除颤的情况下改善了护理/医疗设施外OHCA的结局(调整优势比1.24 [1.04 - 1.48]),但在没有院前除颤的情况下恶化了设施内OHCA的结局(0.73 [0.54 - 0.99])。旁观者AED放置在护理/医疗设施中很常见,但益处有限。旁观者AED放置的有效性取决于地点、早期院前除颤和急救人员培训。

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