非休克性院内心脏骤停的病因和预后因素:瑞典心肺复苏登记处的一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1111/aas.14496
Samuel Bruchfeld, Erik Ullemark, Gabriel Riva, Joel Ohm, Araz Rawshani, Therese Djärv
{"title":"非休克性院内心脏骤停的病因和预后因素:瑞典心肺复苏登记处的一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Samuel Bruchfeld, Erik Ullemark, Gabriel Riva, Joel Ohm, Araz Rawshani, Therese Djärv","doi":"10.1111/aas.14496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a condition with diverse aetiology, predictive factors, and outcome. This study aimed to compare IHCA with initial asystole or pulseless electrical activity (PEA), focusing specifically on their aetiologies and the significance of predictive factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, adult non-shockable IHCA cases from 2018 to 2022 (n = 5788) were analysed. Exposure was initial rhythm, while survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome. A random forest model with 28 variables was used to generate permutation-based variable importance for outcome prediction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 60% of patients (n = 3486) were male and the median age was 75 years (IQR 67-81). The most frequent arrest location (46%) was on general wards. Comorbidities were present in 79% of cases and the most prevalent comorbidity was heart failure (33%). Initial rhythm was PEA in 47% (n = 2702) of patients, and asystole in 53% (n = 3086). The most frequent aetiologies in both PEA and asystole were cardiac ischemia (24% vs. 19%, absolute difference [AD]: 5.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.7%), and respiratory failure (14% vs. 13%, no significant difference). Survival was higher in asystole (24%) than in PEA (17%) (AD: 7.3%; 95% CI 5.2% to 9.4%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) durations were longer in PEA, 18 vs 15 min (AD 4.9 min, 95% CI 4.0-5.9 min). The duration of CPR was the single most important predictor of survival across all subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Aetiology ranked as the second most important predictor in most analyses, except in the asystole subgroup where responsiveness at cardiac arrest team arrival took precedence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this nationwide registry study of non-shockable IHCA comparing asystole to PEA, cardiac ischemia and respiratory failure were the predominant aetiologies. Duration of CPR was the most important predictor of survival, followed by aetiology. Asystole was associated with higher survival compared to PEA, possibly due to shorter CPR durations and a larger proportion of reversible aetiologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"1504-1514"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aetiology and predictors of outcome in non-shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort study from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Bruchfeld, Erik Ullemark, Gabriel Riva, Joel Ohm, Araz Rawshani, Therese Djärv\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.14496\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Non-shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a condition with diverse aetiology, predictive factors, and outcome. This study aimed to compare IHCA with initial asystole or pulseless electrical activity (PEA), focusing specifically on their aetiologies and the significance of predictive factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, adult non-shockable IHCA cases from 2018 to 2022 (n = 5788) were analysed. Exposure was initial rhythm, while survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome. A random forest model with 28 variables was used to generate permutation-based variable importance for outcome prediction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 60% of patients (n = 3486) were male and the median age was 75 years (IQR 67-81). The most frequent arrest location (46%) was on general wards. Comorbidities were present in 79% of cases and the most prevalent comorbidity was heart failure (33%). Initial rhythm was PEA in 47% (n = 2702) of patients, and asystole in 53% (n = 3086). The most frequent aetiologies in both PEA and asystole were cardiac ischemia (24% vs. 19%, absolute difference [AD]: 5.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.7%), and respiratory failure (14% vs. 13%, no significant difference). Survival was higher in asystole (24%) than in PEA (17%) (AD: 7.3%; 95% CI 5.2% to 9.4%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) durations were longer in PEA, 18 vs 15 min (AD 4.9 min, 95% CI 4.0-5.9 min). The duration of CPR was the single most important predictor of survival across all subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Aetiology ranked as the second most important predictor in most analyses, except in the asystole subgroup where responsiveness at cardiac arrest team arrival took precedence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this nationwide registry study of non-shockable IHCA comparing asystole to PEA, cardiac ischemia and respiratory failure were the predominant aetiologies. Duration of CPR was the most important predictor of survival, followed by aetiology. Asystole was associated with higher survival compared to PEA, possibly due to shorter CPR durations and a larger proportion of reversible aetiologies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1504-1514\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14496\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14496","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:非电击性院内心脏骤停(IHCA)的病因、预测因素和预后各不相同。本研究旨在比较 IHCA 与初始心搏骤停或无脉电活动(PEA)的关系,特别关注它们的病因和预测因素的重要性:利用瑞典心肺复苏登记处,分析了2018年至2022年的成人非休克型IHCA病例(n = 5788)。暴露为初始心律,出院存活为主要结果。采用包含28个变量的随机森林模型,生成基于置换的变量重要性,用于结果预测:总体而言,60%的患者(n = 3486)为男性,中位年龄为 75 岁(IQR 67-81)。最常见的发病地点(46%)是普通病房。79%的病例存在合并症,最常见的合并症是心力衰竭(33%)。47%(2702 人)的患者初始心律为 PEA,53%(3086 人)的患者初始心律为僵搏。PEA 和心搏骤停最常见的病因是心脏缺血(24% 对 19%,绝对差异 [AD]:5.4%;95% 置信度 [AD]:5.4%;95% 置信度 [AD]:5.4%):5.4%;95% 置信区间 [CI] 3.0% 至 7.7%)和呼吸衰竭(14% 对 13%,无显著差异)。心跳停止时的存活率(24%)高于 PEA 时的存活率(17%)(AD:7.3%;95% CI:5.2% 至 9.4%)。PEA 的心肺复苏(CPR)持续时间更长,为 18 分钟对 15 分钟(AD:4.9 分钟;95% CI:4.0-5.9 分钟)。在所有亚组和敏感性分析中,心肺复苏持续时间是预测存活率的最重要指标。在大多数分析中,病因是第二重要的预测因素,但在心搏骤停亚组中除外,因为心搏骤停小组到达时的反应能力优先:在这项全国性的非休克型 IHCA 登记研究中,比较了心搏骤停和 PEA,发现心肌缺血和呼吸衰竭是主要病因。心肺复苏持续时间是预测存活率的最重要因素,其次是病因。与 PEA 相比,心搏骤停导致的存活率更高,这可能是由于心肺复苏持续时间较短以及可逆病因所占比例较大。
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
Aetiology and predictors of outcome in non-shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort study from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Background: Non-shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a condition with diverse aetiology, predictive factors, and outcome. This study aimed to compare IHCA with initial asystole or pulseless electrical activity (PEA), focusing specifically on their aetiologies and the significance of predictive factors.

Methods: Using the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, adult non-shockable IHCA cases from 2018 to 2022 (n = 5788) were analysed. Exposure was initial rhythm, while survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome. A random forest model with 28 variables was used to generate permutation-based variable importance for outcome prediction.

Results: Overall, 60% of patients (n = 3486) were male and the median age was 75 years (IQR 67-81). The most frequent arrest location (46%) was on general wards. Comorbidities were present in 79% of cases and the most prevalent comorbidity was heart failure (33%). Initial rhythm was PEA in 47% (n = 2702) of patients, and asystole in 53% (n = 3086). The most frequent aetiologies in both PEA and asystole were cardiac ischemia (24% vs. 19%, absolute difference [AD]: 5.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.7%), and respiratory failure (14% vs. 13%, no significant difference). Survival was higher in asystole (24%) than in PEA (17%) (AD: 7.3%; 95% CI 5.2% to 9.4%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) durations were longer in PEA, 18 vs 15 min (AD 4.9 min, 95% CI 4.0-5.9 min). The duration of CPR was the single most important predictor of survival across all subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Aetiology ranked as the second most important predictor in most analyses, except in the asystole subgroup where responsiveness at cardiac arrest team arrival took precedence.

Conclusions: In this nationwide registry study of non-shockable IHCA comparing asystole to PEA, cardiac ischemia and respiratory failure were the predominant aetiologies. Duration of CPR was the most important predictor of survival, followed by aetiology. Asystole was associated with higher survival compared to PEA, possibly due to shorter CPR durations and a larger proportion of reversible aetiologies.

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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
期刊最新文献
Effect of intraoperative methadone in robot-assisted cystectomy on postoperative opioid requirements: A randomized clinical trial. Epidural analgesia versus systemic opioids for postoperative pain management after VATS: Protocol for a systematic review. Time from pain assessment to opioid treatment in the Danish emergency departments-A multicenter cohort study. Viscoelastic testing of fibrinolytic capacity in acutely infected critically ill patients: Protocol for a scoping review. Does cytochrome 2D6 genotype affect the analgesic efficacy of codeine after ambulatory surgery? Prospective trial in 987 adults.
×
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