Suppr超能文献

[由急诊医生还是急救助手进行首次除颤?一项针对心室颤动门诊患者的前瞻性、多中心比较研究]

[Initial defibrillation by emergency physicians or by first aid assistants? A prospective, comparative multicenter study in outpatients with ventricular fibrillation].

作者信息

Mauer D, Schneider T, Diehl P, Dick W, Brehmer F, Juchems R, Kettler D, Kleine-Zander R, Klingler H, Rossi R

机构信息

Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz.

出版信息

Anaesthesist. 1994 Jan;43(1):36-49. doi: 10.1007/s001010050032.

Abstract

In a controlled prospective randomized study, defibrillation by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) was compared with the current standard of care in Germany (basic life support by EMTs and defibrillation by emergency physicians only) in order to answer the following questions: 1. Does EMT defibrillation improve the survival rate and long-term prognosis of patients in ventricular fibrillation as compared to the current German standards in resuscitation (basic life support by EMTs and defibrillation by emergency physicians)? 2. Are the prerequisites for the use of semiautomatic defibrillators fulfilled in the emergency medical systems (EMS) of the participating centers? METHODS. The study phase includes randomization of 121 adult patients with witnessed cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation (VF) as first ECG rhythm. Prior to the onset of the study, all EMTs of the participating EMS systems were retrained in basic life support (BLS) measures. In each center, randomly assessed EMT-Ds (EMTs trained in Defibrillation) were trained to use semiautomatic defibrillators. With the help of one-line tape recording, the time intervals during resuscitation and treatment steps were evaluated. Successfully resuscitated patients were followed up with the help of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Pittsburgh Cerebral and Overall Performance Categories. RESULTS. From 1 February 1991 until 28 June 1992, 159 patients with VF were randomized. In 121 cases, collapse was witnessed. 25% (14/57) of the patients receiving defibrillation by EMT-Ds (study group = S) were discharged from the hospital alive. In the control group, 52 patients were defibrillated by emergency physicians, following BLS by EMTs [control group 1 = C1; discharged: 29% (15/52)]. Fifty patients received BLS and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) by the emergency physicians crews [control group 2 = C2; discharged: 18% (9/20)]. In the study group, the median time interval from collapse of the patient until initiation of BLS measures was 7.7 min, 7 min in C1 and 8 min in C2. ACLS measures were initiated significantly earlier (P < 0.05) in the control groups, as compared to the study group [S: 13 min, C1: 11 min; C2: 10.3 min]. Sixty-seven percent (30/45) of the study patients and 46% (36/76) of the control patients were defibrillated within 12 min. Study patients were defibrillated earlier (P < 0.05) (S: 9.9 min; C1: 12.2 min; C2: 12.75 min); return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved earlier (P < 0.05) in the study group [S: 14 min; C1: 19 min; C2: 18.2 min] and the number of patients in the study group requiring no epinephrine during resuscitation was higher (P < 0.01) than in the control groups [S: 35.3% (12/34); C1: 10% (4/40); C2: 10.5% (4/38)]. Furthermore, the total amount of epinephrine [mean (+/- standard error)] administered in the study group [S: 2.35 (+/- 0.49) mg; C1: 6.71 (+/- 0.98) mg; C2: 7.71 (+/- 1.31) mg] was significantly lower (P < 0.05). No significant differences in neurological long-term prognosis were found for the groups investigated. CONCLUSION. Neither the initial survival rate the number of patients discharged alive, nor the neurological long-term prognosis was significantly different for any of the groups investigated. Because of apparent differences in indirect prognostic parameters (time interval until ROSC, number of patients requiring no epinephrine) and because of the fact that the time interval to the first defibrillation was reduced by EMT defibrillation, EMT-Ds may perform defibrillation if: (a) they reach the patient before the emergency physician and (b) if they are trained intensively and supervised continuously. In order to increase the efficiency of defibrillation by EMT-Ds, far-reaching changes in our EMS are mandatory: (a) a reduction in the time interval from collapse until initiation of BCLS measures by intensifying layperson CPR training; (b) an increase in the number of emergency units equipped with semiautomatic defibril

摘要

在一项前瞻性对照随机研究中,将急救医疗技术人员(EMT)进行除颤与德国当前的护理标准(仅由EMT进行基础生命支持以及由急诊医生进行除颤)进行比较,以回答以下问题:1. 与德国当前的复苏标准(EMT进行基础生命支持以及急诊医生进行除颤)相比,EMT除颤是否能提高心室颤动患者的生存率和长期预后?2. 参与中心的急救医疗系统(EMS)是否满足使用半自动除颤器的前提条件?方法。研究阶段包括将121例成年目击心脏骤停且初始心电图节律为心室颤动(VF)的患者随机分组。在研究开始前,参与EMS系统的所有EMT都重新接受了基础生命支持(BLS)措施的培训。在每个中心,随机挑选的接受除颤培训的EMT(EMT-D)接受使用半自动除颤器的培训。借助一线磁带记录,对复苏和治疗步骤中的时间间隔进行评估。成功复苏的患者借助格拉斯哥昏迷量表以及匹兹堡脑功能和整体表现分类进行随访。结果。从1991年2月1日至1992年6月28日,159例VF患者被随机分组。其中121例是目击心搏骤停。接受EMT-D除颤的患者中有25%(14/57)存活出院(研究组 = S)。在对照组中,52例患者先由EMT进行BLS,然后由急诊医生进行除颤[对照组1 = C1;出院率:29%(15/52)]。50例患者由急诊医生团队进行BLS和高级心脏生命支持(ACLS)[对照组2 = C2;出院率:18%(9/20)]。在研究组中,从患者心搏骤停至开始BLS措施的中位时间间隔为7.7分钟,C1组为7分钟,C2组为8分钟。与研究组相比,对照组开始ACLS措施的时间明显更早(P < 0.05)[S组:13分钟,C1组:11分钟;C2组:10.3分钟]。45例研究患者中有67%(30/45)以及76例对照患者中有46%(36/76)在12分钟内接受了除颤。研究组患者接受除颤的时间更早(P < 0.05)(S组:9.9分钟;C1组:12.2分钟;C2组:12.75分钟);研究组恢复自主循环(ROSC)更早(P < 0.05)[S组:14分钟;C1组:19分钟;C2组:18.2分钟],并且研究组在复苏期间不需要肾上腺素的患者数量高于对照组(P < 0.01)[S组:35.3%(12/34);C1组:10%(4/40);C2组:10.5%(4/38)]。此外,研究组使用的肾上腺素总量[平均值(±标准误)][S组:2.35(±0.49)mg;C1组:6.71(±0.98)mg;C,组:7.71(±1.31)mg]明显更低(P < 0.05)。所研究的各组在神经学长期预后方面未发现显著差异。结论。所研究的任何一组在初始生存率、存活出院患者数量以及神经学长期预后方面均无显著差异。由于间接预后参数存在明显差异(至ROSC的时间间隔、不需要肾上腺素的患者数量),并且由于EMT除颤缩短了首次除颤的时间间隔,因此如果满足以下条件,EMT-D可以进行除颤:(a)他们比急诊医生更早到达患者身边;(b)他们接受强化培训并持续接受监督。为了提高EMT-D除颤的效率,我们的EMS必须进行深远变革:(a)通过加强非专业人员心肺复苏培训来缩短从心搏骤停至开始BCLS措施的时间间隔;(b)增加配备半自动除颤器的急救单元数量。

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