R. Myerburg, J. Fenster, M. Velez, D. Rosenberg, S. Lai, P. Kurlansky, Starbuck Newton, Melenda Knox, A. Castellanos
{"title":"社区警车部署自动体外除颤器对院外心脏骤停患者生存的影响","authors":"R. Myerburg, J. Fenster, M. Velez, D. Rosenberg, S. Lai, P. Kurlansky, Starbuck Newton, Melenda Knox, A. Castellanos","doi":"10.1161/01.CIR.0000028147.92190.A7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background—Disappointing survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests encourage strategies for faster defibrillation, such as use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by nonconventional responders. Methods and Results—AEDs were provided to all Miami-Dade County, Florida, police. AED-equipped police (P-AED) and conventional emergency medical rescue (EMS) responders are simultaneously deployed to possible cardiac arrests. Times from 9-1-1 contact to the scene were compared for P-AED and concurrently deployed EMS, and both were compared with historical EMS experience. Survival with P-AED was compared with outcomes when EMS was the sole responder. Among 420 paired dispatches of P-AED and EMS, the mean±SD P-AED time from 9-1-1 call to arrival at the scene was 6.16±4.27 minutes, compared with 7.56±3.60 minutes for EMS (P <0.001). Police arrived first to 56% of the calls. The time to first responder arrival among P-AED and EMS was 4.88±2.88 minutes (P <0.001), compared with a historical response time of 7.64±3.66 minutes when EMS was the sole responder. A 17.2% survival rate was observed for victims with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT/VF), compared with 9.0% for standard EMS before P-AED implementation (P =0.047). However, VT/VF benefit was diluted by the observation that 61% of the initial rhythms were nonshockable, reducing the absolute survival benefit among the total study population to 1.6% (P-AED, 7.6%; EMS, 6.0%). Conclusions—P-AED establishes a layer of responders that generate improved response times and survival from VT/VF. There was no benefit for victims with nonshockable rhythms.","PeriodicalId":10194,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":"21 1","pages":"1058-1064"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"272","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Community-Wide Police Car Deployment of Automated External Defibrillators on Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest\",\"authors\":\"R. Myerburg, J. Fenster, M. Velez, D. Rosenberg, S. Lai, P. Kurlansky, Starbuck Newton, Melenda Knox, A. Castellanos\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/01.CIR.0000028147.92190.A7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background—Disappointing survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests encourage strategies for faster defibrillation, such as use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by nonconventional responders. Methods and Results—AEDs were provided to all Miami-Dade County, Florida, police. AED-equipped police (P-AED) and conventional emergency medical rescue (EMS) responders are simultaneously deployed to possible cardiac arrests. Times from 9-1-1 contact to the scene were compared for P-AED and concurrently deployed EMS, and both were compared with historical EMS experience. Survival with P-AED was compared with outcomes when EMS was the sole responder. Among 420 paired dispatches of P-AED and EMS, the mean±SD P-AED time from 9-1-1 call to arrival at the scene was 6.16±4.27 minutes, compared with 7.56±3.60 minutes for EMS (P <0.001). Police arrived first to 56% of the calls. The time to first responder arrival among P-AED and EMS was 4.88±2.88 minutes (P <0.001), compared with a historical response time of 7.64±3.66 minutes when EMS was the sole responder. A 17.2% survival rate was observed for victims with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT/VF), compared with 9.0% for standard EMS before P-AED implementation (P =0.047). However, VT/VF benefit was diluted by the observation that 61% of the initial rhythms were nonshockable, reducing the absolute survival benefit among the total study population to 1.6% (P-AED, 7.6%; EMS, 6.0%). Conclusions—P-AED establishes a layer of responders that generate improved response times and survival from VT/VF. There was no benefit for victims with nonshockable rhythms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"1058-1064\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"272\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000028147.92190.A7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000028147.92190.A7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Impact of Community-Wide Police Car Deployment of Automated External Defibrillators on Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
Background—Disappointing survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests encourage strategies for faster defibrillation, such as use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by nonconventional responders. Methods and Results—AEDs were provided to all Miami-Dade County, Florida, police. AED-equipped police (P-AED) and conventional emergency medical rescue (EMS) responders are simultaneously deployed to possible cardiac arrests. Times from 9-1-1 contact to the scene were compared for P-AED and concurrently deployed EMS, and both were compared with historical EMS experience. Survival with P-AED was compared with outcomes when EMS was the sole responder. Among 420 paired dispatches of P-AED and EMS, the mean±SD P-AED time from 9-1-1 call to arrival at the scene was 6.16±4.27 minutes, compared with 7.56±3.60 minutes for EMS (P <0.001). Police arrived first to 56% of the calls. The time to first responder arrival among P-AED and EMS was 4.88±2.88 minutes (P <0.001), compared with a historical response time of 7.64±3.66 minutes when EMS was the sole responder. A 17.2% survival rate was observed for victims with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT/VF), compared with 9.0% for standard EMS before P-AED implementation (P =0.047). However, VT/VF benefit was diluted by the observation that 61% of the initial rhythms were nonshockable, reducing the absolute survival benefit among the total study population to 1.6% (P-AED, 7.6%; EMS, 6.0%). Conclusions—P-AED establishes a layer of responders that generate improved response times and survival from VT/VF. There was no benefit for victims with nonshockable rhythms.