• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

安大略省关于院内心脏骤停和院外心脏骤停的主动按压-减压心肺复苏试验。

The Ontario trial of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital and prehospital cardiac arrest.

作者信息

Stiell I G, Hébert P C, Wells G A, Laupacis A, Vandemheen K, Dreyer J F, Eisenhauer M A, Gibson J, Higginson L A, Kirby A S, Mahon J L, Maloney J P, Weitzman B N

机构信息

Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

JAMA. 1996 May 8;275(18):1417-23.

PMID:8618367
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and standard CPR on the outcomes of in-hospital and prehospital victims of cardiac arrest.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with blinding of allocation using a sealed container.

SETTINGS

(1) Emergency departments, wards, and intensive care units of 5 university hospitals and (2) all locations outside hospitals in 2 midsized cities.

PATIENTS

A total of 1784 adults who had cardiac arrest.

INTERVENTION

Patients received either standard or ACD CPR throughout resuscitation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Survival for 1 hour and to hospital discharge and the modified Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).

RESULTS

All characteristics were similar in the standard and ACD CPR groups for the 773 in-hospital patients and the 1011 prehospital patients. For in-hospital patients, there were no significant differences between the standard (n = 368) and ACD (n = 405) CPR groups in survival for 1 hour (35.1% vs 34.6%; P = .89), in survival until hospital discharge (11.4% vs 10.4%; P = .64), or in the median MMSE score of survivors (37 in both groups). For patients who collapsed outside the hospital, there were also no significant differences between the standard (n = 510) and ACD (n = 501) CPR groups in survival for 1 hour (16.5% vs 18.2%; P = .48), in survival to hospital discharge (3.7% vs 4.6%; P = .49), or in the median MMSE score of survivors (35 in both groups). Exploration of clinically important subgroups failed to identify any patients who appeared to benefit from ACD CPR.

CONCLUSIONS

ACD CPR did not improve survival or neurologic outcomes in any group of patients with cardiac arrest.

摘要

目的

比较主动按压-减压(ACD)心肺复苏(CPR)与标准CPR对院内心脏骤停患者和院外心脏骤停患者结局的影响。

设计

采用密封容器进行随机分组的随机对照试验。

地点

(1)5所大学医院的急诊科、病房和重症监护病房;(2)2个中等城市的所有院外地点。

患者

共有1784例心脏骤停的成年人。

干预措施

患者在整个复苏过程中接受标准CPR或ACD CPR。

主要观察指标

复苏后1小时存活情况、出院存活率以及改良简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)。

结果

773例院内心脏骤停患者和1011例院外心脏骤停患者中,标准CPR组和ACD CPR组的所有特征均相似。对于院内心脏骤停患者,标准CPR组(n = 368)和ACD CPR组(n = 405)在复苏后1小时存活率(35.1%对34.6%;P = 0.89)、出院存活率(11.4%对10.4%;P = 0.64)或存活者的MMSE评分中位数(两组均为37分)方面均无显著差异。对于院外心脏骤停患者,标准CPR组(n = 510)和ACD CPR组(n = 501)在复苏后1小时存活率(16.5%对18.2%;P = 0.48)、出院存活率(3.7%对4.6%;P = 0.49)或存活者的MMSE评分中位数(两组均为35分)方面也无显著差异。对具有临床重要意义的亚组进行分析,未发现任何似乎从ACD CPR中获益的患者。

结论

ACD CPR未能改善任何心脏骤停患者群体的存活率或神经功能结局。

相似文献

1
The Ontario trial of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital and prehospital cardiac arrest.安大略省关于院内心脏骤停和院外心脏骤停的主动按压-减压心肺复苏试验。
JAMA. 1996 May 8;275(18):1417-23.
2
A randomized clinical trial of active compression-decompression CPR vs standard CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in two cities.在两个城市进行的院外心脏骤停患者中,主动按压-减压心肺复苏与标准心肺复苏的随机临床试验。
JAMA. 1995 Apr 26;273(16):1261-8.
3
Evaluation of active compression-decompression CPR in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.院外心脏骤停患者实施主动按压-减压心肺复苏术的评估
JAMA. 1994 May 11;271(18):1405-11.
4
Comparison of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus the combination of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an inspiratory impedance threshold device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.院外心脏骤停时标准心肺复苏与主动按压-减压心肺复苏联合吸气阻抗阈值装置的比较。
Circulation. 2003 Nov 4;108(18):2201-5. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095787.99180.B5. Epub 2003 Oct 20.
5
A comparison of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and active compression-decompression resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. French Active Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Study Group.院外心脏骤停标准心肺复苏与主动按压-减压复苏的比较。法国主动按压-减压心肺复苏研究小组。
N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 19;341(8):569-75. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199908193410804.
6
The United Kingdom pre-hospital study of active compression-decompression resuscitation.英国院前主动按压-减压复苏研究。
Resuscitation. 1998 May;37(2):119-25. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(98)00045-8.
7
ACD versus standard CPR in a prehospital setting.院前环境下的主动循环按压与标准心肺复苏术对比
Resuscitation. 1996 Dec;33(2):117-24. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01021-0.
8
Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial.院外心脏骤停复苏期间手动胸外按压与使用自动胸外按压装置的比较:一项随机试验。
JAMA. 2006 Jun 14;295(22):2620-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.22.2620.
9
A comparison of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrests occurring in the hospital.院内发生心脏骤停时,主动压缩-减压心肺复苏与标准心肺复苏的比较。
N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 23;329(26):1918-21. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199312233292603.
10
Effect of active compression-decompression resuscitation (ACD-CPR) on survival: a combined analysis using individual patient data.主动按压-减压复苏术(ACD-CPR)对生存率的影响:一项使用个体患者数据的综合分析。
Resuscitation. 1999 Aug;41(3):249-56. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(99)00073-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Physiology-Guided Resuscitation: Monitoring and Augmenting Perfusion during Cardiopulmonary Arrest.生理学指导的复苏:心肺复苏期间的灌注监测与增强
J Clin Med. 2024 Jun 16;13(12):3527. doi: 10.3390/jcm13123527.
2
One-Year Review in Cardiac Arrest: The 2022 Randomized Controlled Trials.心脏骤停的一年回顾:2022年随机对照试验
J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 14;12(6):2235. doi: 10.3390/jcm12062235.
3
Calcium use during cardiac arrest: A systematic review.心脏骤停期间钙的使用:一项系统评价。
Resusc Plus. 2022 Oct 8;12:100315. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100315. eCollection 2022 Dec.
4
[Not Available].[无可用内容]
Notf Rett Med. 2006;9(1):38-80. doi: 10.1007/s10049-006-0796-0. Epub 2006 Feb 1.
5
The Development of Innovative Handheld Devices to Augment Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Therapy and External Cardioversion and Defibrillation.用于增强心肺复苏治疗及体外心脏复律和除颤的创新性手持设备的研发。
J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2017 Dec 15;8(12):2930-2938. doi: 10.19102/icrm.2017.081201. eCollection 2017 Dec.
6
In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Review.院内心搏骤停:综述。
JAMA. 2019 Mar 26;321(12):1200-1210. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.1696.
7
Blood flow maintenance by cardiac massage during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Classical theories, newer hypotheses, and clinical utility of mechanical devices.心肺复苏期间通过心脏按摩维持血流:经典理论、新假说及机械设备的临床应用
J Intensive Care Soc. 2019 Feb;20(1):2-10. doi: 10.1177/1751143718778486. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
8
The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study.LUCAS在院外心脏骤停场景中的疗效:一项交叉模拟人研究。
West J Emerg Med. 2017 Apr;18(3):437-445. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.1.32575. Epub 2017 Mar 14.
9
Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus standard CPR for cardiac arrest patients: a meta-analysis.主动按压-减压心肺复苏(CPR)与标准 CPR 治疗心搏骤停患者的效果比较:一项荟萃分析。
World J Emerg Med. 2013;4(4):266-72. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.04.004.
10
[Mechanical resuscitation assist devices].[机械复苏辅助设备]
Anaesthesist. 2014 Mar;63(3):186-97. doi: 10.1007/s00101-013-2265-8.