单剂量肾上腺素能否改善院外心脏骤停、旁观者心肺复苏或可电击心律失常患者的预后?

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Prehospital Emergency Care Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1080/10903127.2024.2348663
Tyler S George, Nicklaus P Ashburn, Anna C Snavely, Bryan P Beaver, Michael A Chado, Harris Cannon, Casey G Costa, James E Winslow, R Darrell Nelson, Jason P Stopyra, Simon A Mahler
{"title":"单剂量肾上腺素能否改善院外心脏骤停、旁观者心肺复苏或可电击心律失常患者的预后?","authors":"Tyler S George, Nicklaus P Ashburn, Anna C Snavely, Bryan P Beaver, Michael A Chado, Harris Cannon, Casey G Costa, James E Winslow, R Darrell Nelson, Jason P Stopyra, Simon A Mahler","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2348663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A single dose epinephrine protocol (SDEP) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) achieves similar survival to hospital discharge (SHD) rates as a multidose epinephrine protocol (MDEP). However, it is unknown if a SDEP improves SHD rates among patients with a shockable rhythm or those receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This pre-post study, spanning 11/01/2016-10/29/2019 at 5 North Carolina EMS systems, compared pre-implementation MDEP and post-implementation SDEP in patients ≥18 years old with non-traumatic OHCA. Data on initial rhythm type, performance of bystander CPR, and the primary outcome of SHD were sourced from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival. We compared SDEP vs MDEP performance in each rhythm (shockable and non-shockable) and CPR (bystander CPR or no bystander CPR) subgroup using Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustering among EMS systems and to adjust for age, sex, race, witnessed arrest, arrest location, AED availability, EMS response interval, and presence of a shockable rhythm or receiving bystander CPR. The interaction of SDEP implementation with rhythm type and bystander CPR was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1690 patients accrued (899 MDEP, 791 SDEP), 19.2% (324/1690) had shockable rhythms and 38.9% (658/1690) received bystander CPR. After adjusting for confounders, SHD was increased after SDEP implementation among patients with bystander CPR (aOR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03-2.53). However, SHD was similar in the SDEP cohort vs MDEP cohort among patients without bystander CPR (aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.60-1.09), with a shockable rhythm (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.48-1.91), and with a non-shockable rhythm (aOR 1.26, 95%CI 0.89-1.77). In the adjusted model, the interaction between SDEP implementation and bystander CPR was significant for SHD (<i>p</i> = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adjusting for confounders, the SDEP increased SHD in patients who received bystander CPR and there was a significant interaction between SDEP and bystander CPR. Single dose epinephrine protocol and MDEP had similar SHD rates regardless of rhythm type.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579245/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does Single Dose Epinephrine Improve Outcomes for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Bystander CPR or a Shockable Rhythm?\",\"authors\":\"Tyler S George, Nicklaus P Ashburn, Anna C Snavely, Bryan P Beaver, Michael A Chado, Harris Cannon, Casey G Costa, James E Winslow, R Darrell Nelson, Jason P Stopyra, Simon A Mahler\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10903127.2024.2348663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A single dose epinephrine protocol (SDEP) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) achieves similar survival to hospital discharge (SHD) rates as a multidose epinephrine protocol (MDEP). However, it is unknown if a SDEP improves SHD rates among patients with a shockable rhythm or those receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This pre-post study, spanning 11/01/2016-10/29/2019 at 5 North Carolina EMS systems, compared pre-implementation MDEP and post-implementation SDEP in patients ≥18 years old with non-traumatic OHCA. Data on initial rhythm type, performance of bystander CPR, and the primary outcome of SHD were sourced from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival. We compared SDEP vs MDEP performance in each rhythm (shockable and non-shockable) and CPR (bystander CPR or no bystander CPR) subgroup using Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustering among EMS systems and to adjust for age, sex, race, witnessed arrest, arrest location, AED availability, EMS response interval, and presence of a shockable rhythm or receiving bystander CPR. The interaction of SDEP implementation with rhythm type and bystander CPR was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1690 patients accrued (899 MDEP, 791 SDEP), 19.2% (324/1690) had shockable rhythms and 38.9% (658/1690) received bystander CPR. After adjusting for confounders, SHD was increased after SDEP implementation among patients with bystander CPR (aOR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03-2.53). However, SHD was similar in the SDEP cohort vs MDEP cohort among patients without bystander CPR (aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.60-1.09), with a shockable rhythm (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.48-1.91), and with a non-shockable rhythm (aOR 1.26, 95%CI 0.89-1.77). In the adjusted model, the interaction between SDEP implementation and bystander CPR was significant for SHD (<i>p</i> = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adjusting for confounders, the SDEP increased SHD in patients who received bystander CPR and there was a significant interaction between SDEP and bystander CPR. Single dose epinephrine protocol and MDEP had similar SHD rates regardless of rhythm type.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prehospital Emergency Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11579245/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prehospital Emergency Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2348663\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2348663","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:治疗院外心脏骤停(OHCA)的单剂量肾上腺素方案(SDEP)与多剂量肾上腺素方案(MDEP)的出院存活率(SHD)相似。然而,SDEP 是否能提高可电击心律患者或接受旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)患者的出院存活率尚不得而知:该研究的时间跨度为 2016 年 1 月 11 日至 2019 年 2 月 29 日,在北卡罗来纳州的 5 个急救医疗系统进行,对年龄≥18 岁的非创伤性 OHCA 患者实施 MDEP 前和 SDEP 后的情况进行了比较。有关初始心律类型、旁观者心肺复苏的实施情况以及 SHD 主要结果的数据均来自 "提高生存率的心脏骤停注册中心"(Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival)。我们使用广义估计方程比较了 SDEP 和 MDEP 在每种心律(可电击和不可电击)和心肺复苏(旁观者心肺复苏或无旁观者心肺复苏)亚组中的表现,以考虑 EMS 系统间的聚类,并调整年龄、性别、种族、目击骤停、骤停地点、AED 可用性、EMS 响应间隔以及是否存在可电击心律或是否接受旁观者心肺复苏。评估了SDEP的实施与心律类型和旁观者心肺复苏的交互作用:在累计的 1690 名患者中(899 名 MDEP,791 名 SDEP),19.2%(324/1690)的患者有可电击心律,38.9%(658/1690)的患者接受了旁观者心肺复苏。调整混杂因素后,实施 SDEP 后,旁观者心肺复苏患者的 SHD 有所增加(aOR 1.61,95%CI 1.03-2.53)。然而,在没有旁观者心肺复苏的患者(aOR 0.81,95%CI 0.60-1.09)、有可电击心律的患者(aOR 0.96,95%CI 0.48-1.91)和有不可电击心律的患者(aOR 1.26,95%CI 0.89-1.77)中,SDEP队列与MDEP队列的SHD相似。在调整模型中,实施 SDEP 与旁观者心肺复苏之间的交互作用对 SHD 有显著影响(p = 0.002):结论:调整混杂因素后,SDEP 增加了接受旁观者心肺复苏的患者的 SHD,SDEP 与旁观者心肺复苏之间存在显著的交互作用。无论心律类型如何,单剂量肾上腺素方案和 MDEP 的 SHD 率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Does Single Dose Epinephrine Improve Outcomes for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Bystander CPR or a Shockable Rhythm?

Background: A single dose epinephrine protocol (SDEP) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) achieves similar survival to hospital discharge (SHD) rates as a multidose epinephrine protocol (MDEP). However, it is unknown if a SDEP improves SHD rates among patients with a shockable rhythm or those receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

Methods: This pre-post study, spanning 11/01/2016-10/29/2019 at 5 North Carolina EMS systems, compared pre-implementation MDEP and post-implementation SDEP in patients ≥18 years old with non-traumatic OHCA. Data on initial rhythm type, performance of bystander CPR, and the primary outcome of SHD were sourced from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival. We compared SDEP vs MDEP performance in each rhythm (shockable and non-shockable) and CPR (bystander CPR or no bystander CPR) subgroup using Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustering among EMS systems and to adjust for age, sex, race, witnessed arrest, arrest location, AED availability, EMS response interval, and presence of a shockable rhythm or receiving bystander CPR. The interaction of SDEP implementation with rhythm type and bystander CPR was evaluated.

Results: Of 1690 patients accrued (899 MDEP, 791 SDEP), 19.2% (324/1690) had shockable rhythms and 38.9% (658/1690) received bystander CPR. After adjusting for confounders, SHD was increased after SDEP implementation among patients with bystander CPR (aOR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03-2.53). However, SHD was similar in the SDEP cohort vs MDEP cohort among patients without bystander CPR (aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.60-1.09), with a shockable rhythm (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.48-1.91), and with a non-shockable rhythm (aOR 1.26, 95%CI 0.89-1.77). In the adjusted model, the interaction between SDEP implementation and bystander CPR was significant for SHD (p = 0.002).

Conclusion: Adjusting for confounders, the SDEP increased SHD in patients who received bystander CPR and there was a significant interaction between SDEP and bystander CPR. Single dose epinephrine protocol and MDEP had similar SHD rates regardless of rhythm type.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
期刊最新文献
Key Takeaways and Progress on Leveraging EMS in Overdose Response Among Five Learning Collaborative States. Uses of Fibrinogen Concentrate in Management of Trauma-Induced Coagulopathy in the Prehospital Environment: A Scoping Review. Correlation Between EtCO2 and PCO2 in Patients Undergoing Critical Care Transport. The National Association of EMS Physicians Compendium of Prehospital Trauma Management Position Statements and Resource Documents. Prehospital Trauma Compendium: Fluid Resuscitation in Trauma- a position statement and resource document of NAEMSP.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1