Kowalski R, Thompson B M, Horwitz L, Stueven H, Aprahamian C, Darin J C
Ann Emerg Med. 1984 Nov;13(11):1016-20. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(84)80061-x.
Prehospital bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was studied to determine if it affected the outcome of defibrillation. Four hundred twenty-one consecutive witnessed cardiopulmonary arrests presenting with the initial rhythm of coarse ventricular fibrillation treated by the Milwaukee County Paramedic System from January 1980 to June 1982 were analyzed. Pediatric, trauma, and poisoning patients and those receiving intravenous or endotracheal medications before defibrillation (58) were excluded. Immediate professional bystander CPR (physician, nurse, EMT) and citizen bystander CPR were compared to a control group receiving no bystander CPR until arrival of EMS personnel. A successful defibrillation occurred if defibrillation prior to administration of medication produced an effective cardiac rhythm with pulses. Eighty-eight of the 363 remaining patients (24%) converted with initial defibrillations. While the group receiving professional bystander CPR had a higher successful defibrillation rate than did the no-CPR group (35% vs 22%, P less than .04), citizen bystander CPR and no-CPR groups had similar successful defibrillation rates (24% vs 22%, no significant difference). One hundred eighty-six of the 363 patients (51%) were transported to a hospital with a rhythm and a pulse (a successful resuscitation). Ninety-seven of the 363 patients (27%) were discharged alive from the hospital (a save). Patients who were converted successfully using initial "quick-look" defibrillations were far more likely to be successfully resuscitated (79/88 [90%] vs 107/275 [39%], P greater than .0001) and to be discharged alive from the hospital (54/88 [61%] vs 43/275 [16%], P greater than .0001) than were those who required further advanced cardiac life support techniques.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
对院外旁观者心肺复苏术(CPR)进行了研究,以确定其是否会影响除颤结果。分析了1980年1月至1982年6月期间由密尔沃基县护理急救系统治疗的421例连续目击的心肺骤停病例,这些病例最初的心律为粗颤型室颤。排除了儿科、创伤和中毒患者以及在除颤前接受静脉或气管内用药的患者(58例)。将立即进行的专业旁观者心肺复苏术(医生、护士、急救医疗技术员)和普通公民旁观者心肺复苏术与一个对照组进行比较,该对照组在急救医疗服务人员到达之前未接受旁观者心肺复苏术。如果在用药前进行除颤产生了有效的心律并伴有脉搏,则除颤成功。其余363例患者中有88例(24%)通过首次除颤转为有效心律。虽然接受专业旁观者心肺复苏术的组比未接受心肺复苏术的组有更高的除颤成功率(35%对22%,P小于0.04),但普通公民旁观者心肺复苏术组和未接受心肺复苏术组的除颤成功率相似(24%对22%,无显著差异)。363例患者中有186例(51%)被送往医院时心律和脉搏正常(复苏成功)。363例患者中有97例(27%)从医院存活出院(挽救成功)。与那些需要进一步高级心脏生命支持技术的患者相比,使用首次“快速查看”除颤成功转为有效心律的患者更有可能复苏成功(79/88 [90%]对107/275 [39%],P大于0.0001),也更有可能从医院存活出院(54/88 [61%]对43/2,75 [16%],P大于0.0001)。(摘要截取自250字)