Suppr超能文献

在一个城乡两级急救医疗服务(EMS)系统中,急诊医疗服务(EMT)除颤并不能提高心源性猝死的生存率。

EMT defibrillation does not increase survival from sudden cardiac death in a two-tiered urban-suburban EMS system.

作者信息

Sweeney T A, Runge J W, Gibbs M A, Raymond J M, Schafermeyer R W, Norton H J, Boyle-Whitesel M J

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical Center of Delaware, Wilmington, USA.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Feb;31(2):234-40. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70313-0.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) by EMS initial responders is widely advocated. Evidence supporting the use of AEDs is based largely on the experience of one metropolitan area, with effect on survival in many systems not yet proved. We conducted this study to determine whether the addition of AEDs to an EMS system with a response time of 4 minutes for first-responder emergency medical technicians (FREMTs) and 10 minutes for paramedics would affect survival from cardiac arrest.

METHODS

This prospective, controlled, crossover study (AED versus no AED) of consecutive cardiac arrests managed by 24 FREMT fire companies took place from 1992 to 1995 in Charlotte, North Carolina, a city of 455,000. Patients were stratified using the Utstein criteria. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge among patients with bystander-witnessed arrests of cardiac origin.

RESULTS

Of the 627 patients, 243 were bystander-witnessed arrests of cardiac origin. Survival to hospital discharge was accomplished in 5 of 110 patients (4.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6% to 8.4%) with AED compared with 7 of 133 (5.3%, 95% CI 1.5% to 9.1%) without AED (P = .8). Both groups were comparable with regard to age, gender, history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure or diabetes, arrest at home, bystander CPR, and whether or not ventricular fibrillation (VF) was the initial rhythm. For arrests of any cause, witnessed by bystanders or EMS personnel, with an initial rhythm of VF or ventricular tachycardia (VT), 5 of 77 (6.5%, 95% CI 1.0% to 12.0%) with AED survived compared with 8 of 105 patients (7.6%, 95% CI 2.5% to 12.7%) without AED (P = .8). Statistically significant differences were noted in race and EMS response times between the two groups, which did not affect survival.

CONCLUSION

Addition of AEDs to this EMS system did not improve survival from sudden cardiac death. The data do not support routinely equipping initial responders with AEDs as an isolated enhancement, and raise further doubt about such expenditures in similar EMS systems without first optimizing bystander CPR and EMS dispatching.

摘要

目的

广泛提倡急救医疗服务(EMS)初始响应者使用自动体外除颤器(AED)。支持使用AED的证据主要基于一个大城市地区的经验,其对许多系统中患者生存率的影响尚未得到证实。我们开展这项研究以确定,对于急救医疗技术人员(FREMT)响应时间为4分钟且护理人员响应时间为10分钟的EMS系统,增加AED是否会影响心脏骤停患者的生存率。

方法

1992年至1995年期间,在北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市(一个拥有455,000人口的城市),由24个FREMT消防公司对连续发生的心脏骤停进行了这项前瞻性、对照、交叉研究(AED与无AED对比)。患者按照Utstein标准进行分层。主要终点是有旁观者目睹的心脏源性骤停患者的出院生存率。

结果

627例患者中,243例是有旁观者目睹的心脏源性骤停。配备AED的110例患者中有5例(4.6%;95%置信区间[CI]0.6%至8.4%)出院存活,而未配备AED的133例患者中有7例(5.3%,95%CI 1.5%至9.1%)出院存活(P = 0.8)。两组在年龄、性别、心肌梗死病史、充血性心力衰竭或糖尿病史、在家中发生骤停、旁观者进行心肺复苏以及初始心律是否为心室颤动(VF)方面具有可比性。对于任何原因导致的、由旁观者或EMS人员目睹的、初始心律为VF或室性心动过速(VT)的骤停,配备AED的77例患者中有5例(6.5%,95%CI 1.0%至12.0%)存活,而未配备AED的105例患者中有8例(7.6%,95%CI 2.5%至12.7%)存活(P = 0.8)。两组在种族和EMS响应时间方面存在统计学上的显著差异,但这并未影响生存率。

结论

在此EMS系统中增加AED并未提高心源性猝死的生存率。数据不支持将为初始响应者常规配备AED作为一种孤立的改进措施,并且对于在未首先优化旁观者心肺复苏和EMS调度的类似EMS系统中进行此类支出提出了进一步质疑。

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