丹麦火车站院外心脏骤停的发生率和后果。

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of the American Heart Association Pub Date : 2024-11-05 Epub Date: 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1161/JAHA.124.035733
Annam Pervez Sheikh, Anne Juul Grabmayr, Julie Samsøe Kjølbye, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Carolina Malta Hansen, Fredrik Folke
{"title":"丹麦火车站院外心脏骤停的发生率和后果。","authors":"Annam Pervez Sheikh, Anne Juul Grabmayr, Julie Samsøe Kjølbye, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Carolina Malta Hansen, Fredrik Folke","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.124.035733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following international guidelines, communities have deployed automated external defibrillators at train stations without substantive evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We geocoded public out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) (2016-2020), automated external defibrillators, and train stations. The stations were divided into the following groups according to passenger flow: 1 (0-499), 2 (500-4999), 3 (5000-9999), and 4 (>10 000) passengers per day. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using Poisson regression of rates, and odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed through logistic regression. OHCAs at train stations accounted for 102 (2.3%) of 4467 public OHCAs. The incidence rate (IR) and RR for OHCAs were for group 1: IR, 0.02 OHCA per station per year, RR, 1.0 (reference); group 2: IR, 0.07, RR, 4.1 (95% CI, 2.3-7.3); group 3: IR, 0.25, RR, 12.7 (95% CI, 6.2-25.9); and group 4: IR, 0.34, RR, 16.3 (95% CI, 8.6-30.9). Compared with other public OHCAs, OHCAs at train stations were just as likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.60-2.12]). However, they had higher odds of bystander defibrillation (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.58]), were more likely to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.24-2.85]), and survive 30 days (OR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.57-3.59]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The incidence of OHCAs at train stations was associated with passenger flow, with the busiest stations having a 16-fold higher risk of OHCAs than the lowest. OHCAs at train stations had better outcomes compared with other public OHCAs.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e035733"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incidence and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest at Train Stations in Denmark.\",\"authors\":\"Annam Pervez Sheikh, Anne Juul Grabmayr, Julie Samsøe Kjølbye, Annette Kjær Ersbøll, Carolina Malta Hansen, Fredrik Folke\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/JAHA.124.035733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following international guidelines, communities have deployed automated external defibrillators at train stations without substantive evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We geocoded public out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) (2016-2020), automated external defibrillators, and train stations. The stations were divided into the following groups according to passenger flow: 1 (0-499), 2 (500-4999), 3 (5000-9999), and 4 (>10 000) passengers per day. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using Poisson regression of rates, and odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed through logistic regression. OHCAs at train stations accounted for 102 (2.3%) of 4467 public OHCAs. The incidence rate (IR) and RR for OHCAs were for group 1: IR, 0.02 OHCA per station per year, RR, 1.0 (reference); group 2: IR, 0.07, RR, 4.1 (95% CI, 2.3-7.3); group 3: IR, 0.25, RR, 12.7 (95% CI, 6.2-25.9); and group 4: IR, 0.34, RR, 16.3 (95% CI, 8.6-30.9). Compared with other public OHCAs, OHCAs at train stations were just as likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.60-2.12]). However, they had higher odds of bystander defibrillation (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.58]), were more likely to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.24-2.85]), and survive 30 days (OR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.57-3.59]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The incidence of OHCAs at train stations was associated with passenger flow, with the busiest stations having a 16-fold higher risk of OHCAs than the lowest. OHCAs at train stations had better outcomes compared with other public OHCAs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e035733\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.035733\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.035733","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根据国际指南,一些社区在火车站部署了自动体外除颤器,但并无实质性证据:我们对公共院外心脏骤停(OHCA)(2016-2020 年)、自动体外除颤器和火车站进行了地理编码。根据客流量将车站分为以下几组:1组(0-499)、2组(500-4999)、3组(5000-9999)和4组(>10000)。采用泊松回归法计算风险比(RRs),并通过逻辑回归法分析几率比(ORs)。在 4467 例公共高危事故中,有 102 例(2.3%)发生在火车站。高危窒息症的发病率(IR)和RR分别为:第1组:IR,每年每个车站0.02例高危窒息症,RR,1.0(参考值);第2组:IR,0.07,RR,4.1(95% CI,2.3-7.3);第3组:IR,0.25,RR,12.7(95% CI,6.2-25.9);第4组:IR,0.34,RR,16.3(95% CI,8.6-30.9)。与其他公共场所的高危人群相比,火车站的高危人群接受旁观者心肺复苏的几率相同(OR,1.13 [95% CI,0.60-2.12])。然而,他们接受旁观者除颤的几率更高(OR,1.66 [95% CI,1.06-2.58]),更有可能恢复自主循环(OR,1.88 [95% CI,1.24-2.85]),并存活 30 天(OR,2.37 [95% CI,1.57-3.59]):火车站的心脏骤停发生率与客流量有关,最繁忙的火车站发生心脏骤停的风险是客流量最小的火车站的16倍。与其他公共场所的心脏骤停相比,在火车站发生的心脏骤停结果更好。
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
Incidence and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest at Train Stations in Denmark.

Background: Following international guidelines, communities have deployed automated external defibrillators at train stations without substantive evidence.

Methods and results: We geocoded public out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) (2016-2020), automated external defibrillators, and train stations. The stations were divided into the following groups according to passenger flow: 1 (0-499), 2 (500-4999), 3 (5000-9999), and 4 (>10 000) passengers per day. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using Poisson regression of rates, and odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed through logistic regression. OHCAs at train stations accounted for 102 (2.3%) of 4467 public OHCAs. The incidence rate (IR) and RR for OHCAs were for group 1: IR, 0.02 OHCA per station per year, RR, 1.0 (reference); group 2: IR, 0.07, RR, 4.1 (95% CI, 2.3-7.3); group 3: IR, 0.25, RR, 12.7 (95% CI, 6.2-25.9); and group 4: IR, 0.34, RR, 16.3 (95% CI, 8.6-30.9). Compared with other public OHCAs, OHCAs at train stations were just as likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.60-2.12]). However, they had higher odds of bystander defibrillation (OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.58]), were more likely to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (OR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.24-2.85]), and survive 30 days (OR, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.57-3.59]).

Conclusions: The incidence of OHCAs at train stations was associated with passenger flow, with the busiest stations having a 16-fold higher risk of OHCAs than the lowest. OHCAs at train stations had better outcomes compared with other public OHCAs.

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
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
期刊最新文献
P-Wave Duration Is Associated With Aging Patterns in Structural Brain Networks. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Use and Outcomes With WATCHMAN FLX: A SURPASS Analysis of the NCDR Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry. Smoking or Vaping Cannabis and Cardiovascular Function: Is Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol the Main Culprit? Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and the Pathogenesis of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review on the Missing Link in a Complex Pathway. Hereditary Transthyretin Amyloidosis in Patients Referred to a Genetic Testing Program.
×
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