Fischer M, Fischer N J, Schüttler J
Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Bonn, Germany.
Resuscitation. 1997 Jan;33(3):233-43. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01022-2.
Outcome after prehospital cardiac arrest was examined in the EMS system of Bonn, a midsized urban community, and presented according to the Utstein style. The data were collected from January 1st, 1989 to December 31st, 1992 by the Bonn-north ALS unit, which serves 240,000 residents. Fifty-six patients suffered from cardiac arrest of non-cardiac aetiology and were excluded; 464 patients were resuscitated after cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac aetiology (incidence of CPR attempts: 48.33 per year/100,000 population). The collapse was unwitnessed, bystander witnessed or EMS personnel witnessed in 178, 214 or 72 patients, respectively. In these subgroups discharge rates and 1-year survival accounted for 7.3% (4.5%), 22.9% (15.9%) and 16.7% (11.1%), respectively. Thirty-four patients were discharged without neurological deficits (cerebral performance category 1: CPC 1), 22 and nine patients scored CPC 2 or CPC 3, respectively. Nine patients were comatose (CPC 4) when they were discharged and remained in this state until they died. Of the 50 1-year survivors 35 lived without neurological deficit, eight demonstrated mild (CPC 2) and five severe (CPC 3) cerebral disability at 1-year after resuscitation, and, finally, two patients remained comatose for more than 1 year. The Utstein template recommends the selection of patients who were found in VF after bystander witnessed collapse. In our cohort 118 patients met these criteria. Of them 41 (35%) could be discharged from hospital and 28 (24%) lived more than 1 year. The comparison of our data with those from double-response EMS systems of other communities revealed that, in midsized urban and suburban communities the highest discharging rates could be achieved. Our study demonstrated that survival depends crucially on short response intervals and life support which will be performed by well-trained emergency technicians, paramedics and physicians.
在波恩的急救医疗服务(EMS)系统中,对城市中型社区院外心脏骤停的结果进行了研究,并按照乌斯坦因风格进行呈现。数据由为24万居民服务的波恩北部高级生命支持(ALS)小组于1989年1月1日至1992年12月31日收集。56例因非心脏病因导致心脏骤停的患者被排除;464例因推测为心脏病因导致心脏骤停后被复苏(心肺复苏尝试发生率:每年48.33例/10万人口)。分别有178例、214例或72例患者的心脏骤停为未被目击、旁观者目击或EMS人员目击。在这些亚组中,出院率和1年生存率分别为7.3%(4.5%)、22.9%(15.9%)和16.7%(11.1%)。34例患者出院时无神经功能缺损(脑功能分类1:CPC 1),22例和9例患者分别评分为CPC 2或CPC 3。9例患者出院时昏迷(CPC 4),直至死亡一直处于该状态。在50例1年幸存者中,35例生存时无神经功能缺损,8例在复苏后1年表现为轻度(CPC 2)脑功能障碍,5例表现为重度(CPC 3)脑功能障碍,最后,2例患者昏迷超过1年。乌斯坦因模板建议选择旁观者目击心脏骤停后发现为室颤的患者。在我们的队列中,118例患者符合这些标准。其中41例(35%)可出院,28例(24%)存活超过1年。将我们的数据与其他社区双反应EMS系统的数据进行比较发现,在城市中型和郊区社区可实现最高出院率。我们的研究表明,生存关键取决于短反应时间以及由训练有素的急救技术人员、护理人员和医生进行的生命支持。