首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation
Authors:Ong Marcus Eng Hock  Ornato Joseph P  Edwards David P  Dhindsa Harinder S  Best Al M  Ines Caesar S  Hickey Scott  Clark Bryan  Williams Dean C  Powell Robert G  Overton Jerry L  Peberdy Mary Ann
Affiliation:Departments of Epidemiology and Community Health (Dr Ong) and Biostatistics (Dr Best), Virginia Commonwealth University, and Department of Emergency Medicine (Drs Ong, Dhindsa, Ines, and Hickey), Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology (Dr Peberdy), and Department of Emergency Medicine and the Virginia Commonwealth University Reanimation, Engineering, and Shock Center (Drs Ornato and Peberdy), Virginia Commonwealth University Health System; The Richmond Ambulance Authority (Messrs Edwards and Overton); Department of Emergency Medicine, Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hospital (Dr Clark); Department of Emergency Medicine, Richmond Community Hospital (Dr Williams); and Department of Emergency Medicine, St Mary's Hospital (Dr Powell), Richmond.
Abstract:
Context  Only 1% to 8% of adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survive to hospital discharge. Objective  To compare resuscitation outcomes before and after an urban emergency medical services (EMS) system switched from manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to load-distributing band (LDB) CPR. Design, Setting, and Patients  A phased, observational cohort evaluation with intention-to-treat analysis of 783 adults with out-of-hospital, nontraumatic cardiac arrest. A total of 499 patients were included in the manual CPR phase (January 1, 2001, to March 31, 2003) and 284 patients in the LDB-CPR phase (December 20, 2003, to March 31, 2005); of these patients, the LDB device was applied in 210 patients. Intervention  Urban EMS system change from manual CPR to LDB-CPR. Main Outcome Measures  Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), with secondary outcome measures of survival to hospital admission and hospital discharge, and neurological outcome at discharge. Results  Patients in the manual CPR and LDB-CPR phases were comparable except for a faster response time interval (mean difference, 26 seconds) and more EMS-witnessed arrests (18.7% vs 12.6%) with LDB. Rates for ROSC and survival were increased with LDB-CPR compared with manual CPR (for ROSC, 34.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 29.2%-40.3% vs 20.2%; 95% CI, 16.9%-24.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.38-2.72; for survival to hospital admission, 20.9%; 95% CI, 16.6%-26.1% vs 11.1%; 95% CI, 8.6%-14.2%; adjusted OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.23-2.86; and for survival to hospital discharge, 9.7%; 95% CI, 6.7%-13.8% vs 2.9%; 95% CI, 1.7%-4.8%; adjusted OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.11-4.77). In secondary analysis of the 210 patients in whom the LDB device was applied, 38 patients (18.1%) survived to hospital admission (95% CI, 13.4%-23.9%) and 12 patients (5.7%) survived to hospital discharge (95% CI, 3.0%-9.3%). Among patients in the manual CPR and LDB-CPR groups who survived to hospital discharge, there was no significant difference between groups in Cerebral Performance Category (P = .36) or Overall Performance Category (P = .40). The number needed to treat for the adjusted outcome survival to discharge was 15 (95% CI, 9-33). Conclusion  Compared with resuscitation using manual CPR, a resuscitation strategy using LDB-CPR on EMS ambulances is associated with improved survival to hospital discharge in adults with out-of-hospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest.
Keywords:
本文献已被 PubMed 等数据库收录!
点击此处可从《》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《》下载全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号