Herlitz J, Ekström L, Wennerblom B, Axelsson A, Bång A, Lindkvist J, Persson N G, Holmberg S
Division of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.
Resuscitation. 1997 Jan;33(3):199-205. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01018-0.
A large proportion of cardiac arrests outside hospital are caused by ventricular fibrillation. Although it is frequently used, the exact role for treatment with lidocaine in these patients remains to be determined.
To describe the proportion of patients with witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest found in ventricular fibrillation who survived and were discharged from hospital in relation to whether they were treated with lidocaine prior to hospital admission.
All the patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest found in ventricular fibrillation in Göteborg between 1980 and 1992 in whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was initiated by our emergency medical service (EMS). During the observation period, some of the EMS staff were authorized to give medication and some were not.
In all, 1,360 patients were found in ventricular fibrillation, with detailed information being available in 1,212 cases (89%). Lidocaine was given in 405 of these cases (33%). Among patients with sustained ventricular fibrillation, those who received lidocaine had a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) more frequently (P < 0.001) and were hospitalized alive more frequently (38% vs. 18%, P < 0.01). However, the rate of discharge from hospital did not significantly differ between the two groups. Among patients who were converted to a pulse-generating rhythm, those who received lidocaine on that indication were more frequently alive than those who did not receive such treatment (94% vs. 84%; P < 0.05). However, the rate of discharge did not significantly differ between the two groups.
In a retrospective analysis comparing patients who received lidocaine with those who did not in sustained ventricular fibrillation and after conversion to a pulse-generating rhythm, such treatment was associated with a higher rate at ROSC and hospitalization but was not associated with an increased rate of discharge from hospital.
院外心脏骤停很大一部分是由心室颤动引起的。尽管利多卡因经常被使用,但其在这些患者治疗中的确切作用仍有待确定。
描述院外目击心脏骤停且为心室颤动的患者中,存活并出院的比例与入院前是否接受利多卡因治疗的关系。
1980年至1992年期间在哥德堡发现的所有院外心脏骤停且为心室颤动的患者,均由我们的紧急医疗服务(EMS)启动心肺复苏(CPR)。在观察期间,部分EMS工作人员被授权给药,部分则未被授权。
总共发现1360例心室颤动患者,其中1212例(89%)有详细信息。这些病例中有405例(33%)给予了利多卡因。在持续性心室颤动患者中,接受利多卡因治疗的患者自主循环恢复(ROSC)更频繁(P<0.001),存活入院的频率也更高(38%对18%,P<0.01)。然而,两组的出院率没有显著差异。在转为有脉搏节律的患者中,因该指征接受利多卡因治疗的患者存活的频率高于未接受此类治疗的患者(94%对84%;P<0.05)。然而,两组的出院率没有显著差异。
在一项回顾性分析中,比较持续性心室颤动及转为有脉搏节律后接受利多卡因治疗与未接受治疗的患者,这种治疗与更高的ROSC率和住院率相关,但与出院率增加无关。