White R D, Asplin B R, Bugliosi T F, Hankins D G
Mayo Clinic and Medical School, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Nov;28(5):480-5. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70109-9.
To assess outcome in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) treated by defibrillator-equipped police and emergency medical technician-paramedics in an advanced life support (ALS) emergency medical services (EMS) system.
We carried out a retrospective observational outcome study of all consecutive adult patients with atraumatic cardiac arrest treated from November 1990 through July 1995. The study was carried out in a city with a population of 76,865 in an area of 32.6 square miles. Central 911 dispatched police and an ALS ambulance simultaneously. Accurate intervals were obtained with the synchronization of all defibrillator clocks with the 911 dispatch clock. The personnel who arrived first delivered the initial shock. After shocks delivered by police, paramedics provided additional treatment if needed. Main outcome measures were time elapsed before delivery of the first shock, restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to discharge home.
Of 84 patients, 31 (37%) were first shocked by police. Thirteen of the 31 demonstrated ROSC, without need for ALS treatment. All 13 survived to discharge. The other 18 patients required ALS; 5 (27.7%) survived. Among the 53 patients first shocked by paramedics, 15 had ROSC after shocks only, and 14 survived. The other 38 needed ALS treatment; 9 survived. Call-to-shock time for all patients was less in the police group than in the paramedic group (5.6 versus 6.3 minutes, P = .038). For all patients, call-to-shock time was less in those with ROSC after shocks only than in those who needed ALS (5.4 versus 6.3 minutes, P = .011). Survival to discharge was 49% (41 of 84), with 18 of 31 (58%) in the police group and 23 of 53 (43%) in the paramedic group. Call-to-shock time for survivors was 5.8 minutes; it was 6.4 minutes for the nonsurvivors (P = .020). Neither ROSC nor discharge survival was significantly different between police and paramedic-shocked patients. ROSC after initial shock and call-to-shock time were major determinants of survival, whether the first shocks were administered by police or by paramedics. With ROSC after shocks only, 27 of 28 (96%) survived, whereas 14 of 56 (25%) needing ALS survived (P < .001).
A high discharge-to-home survival rate was obtained with early defibrillation by both police and paramedics. When shocks resulted in ROSC, the overwhelming majority of patients survived (96%). Even brief time decreases (eg. 1 minute) in call-to-shock time increase the likelihood of ROSC from shocks only, with a consequent decrease in the need for ALS intervention. Short call-to-shock time and ROSC response to shocks only are major determinants of a high rate of survival after VF.
评估配备除颤器的警察和急救医疗技术人员-护理人员在高级生命支持(ALS)紧急医疗服务(EMS)系统中对心室颤动(VF)患者的治疗效果。
我们对1990年11月至1995年7月期间所有连续的成年非创伤性心脏骤停患者进行了一项回顾性观察性结局研究。该研究在一个面积为32.6平方英里、人口为76,865的城市中进行。中央911同时调度警察和一辆ALS救护车。通过将所有除颤器时钟与911调度时钟同步来获得准确的时间间隔。最先到达的人员进行首次电击。警察电击后,护理人员根据需要提供额外治疗。主要结局指标为首次电击前经过的时间、自主循环恢复(ROSC)以及出院存活情况。
84例患者中,31例(37%)由警察首次电击。31例中的13例实现了ROSC,无需ALS治疗。这13例均存活至出院。另外18例患者需要ALS治疗;5例(27.7%)存活。在53例由护理人员首次电击的患者中,15例仅在电击后实现了ROSC,14例存活。另外38例需要ALS治疗;9例存活。警察组所有患者的呼叫到电击时间比护理人员组短(5.6分钟对6.3分钟,P = 0.038)。对于所有患者,仅电击后实现ROSC的患者的呼叫到电击时间比需要ALS的患者短(5.4分钟对6.3分钟,P = 0.011)。出院存活率为49%(84例中的41例),警察组31例中的18例(58%),护理人员组53例中的23例(43%)。存活者的呼叫到电击时间为5.8分钟;非存活者为6.4分钟(P = 0.020)。警察电击患者和护理人员电击患者之间的ROSC和出院存活率均无显著差异。首次电击后的ROSC和呼叫到电击时间是存活的主要决定因素,无论首次电击是由警察还是护理人员进行。仅电击后实现ROSC的患者中,28例中的27例(96%)存活,而需要ALS的56例中的14例(25%)存活(P < 0.001)。
警察和护理人员早期除颤均获得了较高的出院存活率。当电击导致ROSC时,绝大多数患者存活(96%)。即使呼叫到电击时间短暂减少(例如1分钟),也会增加仅电击后实现ROSC的可能性,从而减少对ALS干预的需求。短呼叫到电击时间和仅电击后的ROSC反应是VF后高存活率的主要决定因素。