Suppr超能文献

在两级城市急救医疗服务系统中,由急救医疗技术员(EMT-D)或护理人员进行除颤治疗的心脏骤停结局。

Outcomes of sudden cardiac arrest treated with defibrillation by emergency medical technicians (EMT-Ds) or paramedics in a two-tiered urban EMS system.

作者信息

Joyce S M, Davidson L W, Manning K W, Wolsey B, Topham R

机构信息

Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, USA.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998 Jan-Mar;2(1):13-7. doi: 10.1080/10903129808958833.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Controversy exists as to the effectiveness of defibrillation by emergency medical technicians (EMT-Ds) in reducing mortality from cardiac arrest in two-tiered EMS systems. This study was performed to assess the impact of EMT-Ds on outcome of sudden cardiac death in a small, urban, modified two-tiered EMS system.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, unmatched case-control study comparing the outcomes of patients suffering sudden cardiac death treated by EMT-Ds with paramedic (EMT-P) backup with the outcomes of patients treated by EMT-Ps as first responders. Outcomes were defined as survival to the following endpoints: hospital admission, hospital discharge, and discharge with normal neurologic function (neurologic survival). Differences between groups were considered significant if p < or = 0.05 by Fisher's exact test or t-test.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-two patients suffered out-of hospital sudden cardiac deaths over a three-year period and met study inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in mean age, sex distribution, or incidence of ventricular fibrillation as the presenting rhythm between the groups. Rates of survival to admission, survival to discharge, and neurologic survival were 25.8%, 8.1%, and 5.6%, respectively. Corresponding survival rates for 46 patients treated first by EMT-Ds were 19.6%, 8.7%, and 4.3%. For 276 patients treated by EMT-Ps as first responders, the rates were 26.8%, 8.0%, and 5.8%. There were no significant differences in survival rates between the two response modes, despite a significantly shorter response interval for EMT-Ds (3.6 +/- 1.8 min, vs 4.6 +/- 2.0 min for EMT-Ps). There were likewise no significant differences in survival rates between the two response modes when only patients in ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia were considered. There were no significant differences in survival rates grouped by presenting rhythm, with the exception of 9.6% neurologic survival in witnessed ventricular fibrillation as compared with 0% in asystole.

CONCLUSION

EMT defibrillation had no impact on outcome of sudden cardiac death in this small, urban, two-tiered EMS system. Survival rates were similar to those reported for other such systems. However, power to detect significant differences was low, and further study is indicated. Controlled multicenter trials are recommended.

摘要

目的

在两级急救医疗服务(EMS)系统中,关于急救医疗技术人员(EMT-D)除颤在降低心脏骤停死亡率方面的有效性存在争议。本研究旨在评估在一个小型城市改良两级EMS系统中,EMT-D对心源性猝死结局的影响。

方法

这是一项回顾性、非配对病例对照研究,比较了由EMT-D进行除颤并由护理人员(EMT-P)提供支持治疗的心源性猝死患者的结局与由EMT-P作为第一响应者治疗的患者的结局。结局定义为存活至以下终点:入院、出院以及出院时神经功能正常(神经功能存活)。如果通过Fisher精确检验或t检验得出p≤0.05,则认为两组之间的差异具有统计学意义。

结果

在三年期间,有322例患者发生院外心源性猝死并符合研究纳入标准。两组之间在平均年龄、性别分布或作为初始心律的室颤发生率方面没有显著差异。入院存活率、出院存活率和神经功能存活率分别为25.8%、8.1%和5.6%。46例首先由EMT-D治疗的患者的相应存活率分别为19.6%、8.7%和4.3%。对于276例由EMT-P作为第一响应者治疗的患者,这些比率分别为26.8%、8.0%和5.8%。尽管EMT-D的响应间隔明显更短(3.6±1.8分钟,而EMT-P为4.6±2.0分钟),但两种响应模式之间的存活率没有显著差异。当仅考虑室颤或室性心动过速患者时,两种响应模式之间的存活率同样没有显著差异。按初始心律分组的存活率没有显著差异,但目击室颤的神经功能存活率为9.6%,而心脏停搏为0%。

结论

在这个小型城市两级EMS系统中,EMT除颤对心源性猝死结局没有影响。存活率与其他此类系统报告的存活率相似。然而,检测显著差异的效能较低,需要进一步研究。建议进行对照多中心试验。

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