Impact of Community-Wide Police Car Deployment of Automated External Defibrillators on Survival From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

R. Myerburg, J. Fenster, M. Velez, D. Rosenberg, S. Lai, P. Kurlansky, Starbuck Newton, Melenda Knox, A. Castellanos
{"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}
引用次数: 272

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.
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
院外心脏骤停患者令人失望的存活率鼓励采用更快的除颤策略,如非传统应答者使用自动体外除颤器(aed)。方法与结果:向佛罗里达州迈阿密-戴德县所有警察提供aed。配备aed的警察(P-AED)和传统的紧急医疗救援(EMS)响应者同时部署到可能的心脏骤停。比较P-AED和并发部署的EMS从911联系到现场的次数,并与历史EMS经验进行比较。P-AED的生存与EMS作为唯一反应者的结果进行比较。在420对P- aed和EMS的配对调度中,P- aed从报警到到达现场的平均±SD时间为6.16±4.27分钟,EMS为7.56±3.60分钟(P <0.001)。56%的电话是警察先到的。P- aed和EMS的第一响应者到达时间为4.88±2.88分钟(P <0.001),而EMS为唯一响应者的历史反应时间为7.64±3.66分钟。心室颤动或无脉性室性心动过速(VT/VF)患者的生存率为17.2%,而P- aed实施前标准EMS患者的生存率为9.0% (P =0.047)。然而,VT/VF的益处被61%的初始节律是非休克性的这一观察结果所稀释,使整个研究人群的绝对生存益处降至1.6% (P-AED, 7.6%;EMS, 6.0%)。结论- p - aed建立了一层反应者,可以改善VT/VF的反应时间和生存率。对于没有电击节奏的受害者没有任何好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信