旁观者放置自动体外除颤器和院外心脏骤停结果:2021年至2022年倾向评分匹配的队列研究

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kentaro Omatsu, Akira Yamashita, Hideo Inaba
{"title":"旁观者放置自动体外除颤器和院外心脏骤停结果:2021年至2022年倾向评分匹配的队列研究","authors":"Kentaro Omatsu, Akira Yamashita, Hideo Inaba","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-03995-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) placement is expected to benefit all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases, even in the absence of prehospital defibrillation. This study investigated the factors influencing bystander-AED placement and evaluated its impact on neurologically favourable outcomes in bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCA cases receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This retrospective cohort study analysed nationwide EMS-transported emergency and OHCA databases (2021-2022), including 22,443 bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCAs with bystander CPR, of which 10,324 involved bystander-AED placement. AEDs were placed by bystanders in 25,333 (10.6%) of 238,871 non-EMS-witnessed OHCA cases. Logistic regression showed the associations of prehospital defibrillation, no bystander CPR, male sex, outdoor location, at-home setting, and family- or friend/colleague-witnessed OHCA with lower bystander-AED placement rates. In contrast, rural municipality EMS, daytime, DA-CPR attempt, presumed cardiac aetiology, shockable initial rhythm, conventional bystander CPR, and care/medical facilities were associated with higher rates. Neurologically favourable survival was 2.2% for bystander-AED and 2.3% for EMS-AED placement cases within care/medical facilities, compared to 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively, outside these facilities. In both logistic regression analyses after propensity score matching, bystander-AED placement improved outcomes of OHCA outside care/medical facilities only in the presence of prehospital defibrillation (adjusted odds ratio 1.24 [1.04-1.48]) but worsened outcomes of OHCA within the facilities in the absence of prehospital defibrillation (0.73 [0.54-0.99]). Bystander-AED placement was common in care/medical facilities but had limited benefits. The effectiveness of bystander-AED placement depends on location, early prehospital defibrillation, and responder training.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bystander placement of automated external defibrillators and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: a propensity score-matched cohort study between 2021 and 2022.\",\"authors\":\"Kentaro Omatsu, Akira Yamashita, Hideo Inaba\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11739-025-03995-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) placement is expected to benefit all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases, even in the absence of prehospital defibrillation. This study investigated the factors influencing bystander-AED placement and evaluated its impact on neurologically favourable outcomes in bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCA cases receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This retrospective cohort study analysed nationwide EMS-transported emergency and OHCA databases (2021-2022), including 22,443 bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCAs with bystander CPR, of which 10,324 involved bystander-AED placement. AEDs were placed by bystanders in 25,333 (10.6%) of 238,871 non-EMS-witnessed OHCA cases. Logistic regression showed the associations of prehospital defibrillation, no bystander CPR, male sex, outdoor location, at-home setting, and family- or friend/colleague-witnessed OHCA with lower bystander-AED placement rates. In contrast, rural municipality EMS, daytime, DA-CPR attempt, presumed cardiac aetiology, shockable initial rhythm, conventional bystander CPR, and care/medical facilities were associated with higher rates. Neurologically favourable survival was 2.2% for bystander-AED and 2.3% for EMS-AED placement cases within care/medical facilities, compared to 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively, outside these facilities. In both logistic regression analyses after propensity score matching, bystander-AED placement improved outcomes of OHCA outside care/medical facilities only in the presence of prehospital defibrillation (adjusted odds ratio 1.24 [1.04-1.48]) but worsened outcomes of OHCA within the facilities in the absence of prehospital defibrillation (0.73 [0.54-0.99]). Bystander-AED placement was common in care/medical facilities but had limited benefits. The effectiveness of bystander-AED placement depends on location, early prehospital defibrillation, and responder training.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal and Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-03995-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-03995-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

旁观者自动体外除颤器(AED)的放置有望使所有院外心脏骤停(OHCA)病例受益,即使在没有院前除颤的情况下。本研究调查了影响旁观者aed放置的因素,并评估了在旁观者见证下,在室外接受旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)的OHCA病例中,其对神经系统有利结局的影响。这项回顾性队列研究分析了全国ems运输的急诊和OHCA数据库(2021-2022),包括22,443例旁观者见证的户外OHCA,其中10,324例涉及旁观者aed安置。在238,871例非ems目击的OHCA病例中,有25,333例(10.6%)由旁观者放置了aed。Logistic回归显示院前除颤、无旁观者CPR、男性、室外位置、家庭环境、家人或朋友/同事目睹的OHCA与较低的旁观者aed安置率相关。相比之下,农村市政EMS、白天、DA-CPR尝试、假定的心脏病因、休克初始节律、传统的旁观者CPR和护理/医疗设施与较高的发生率相关。在护理/医疗机构内,旁观者aed患者的神经系统有利生存率为2.2%,EMS-AED患者的神经系统有利生存率为2.3%,而在这些机构外,这两组患者的神经系统有利生存率分别为19.5%和11.6%。在倾向评分匹配后的两项logistic回归分析中,只有院前除颤存在时,旁观者aed的放置改善了院前护理/医疗设施外OHCA的结局(调整优势比1.24[1.04-1.48]),但在没有院前除颤的情况下,设施内OHCA的结局恶化(0.73[0.54-0.99])。旁观者aed安置在护理/医疗设施中很常见,但效益有限。旁观者aed放置的有效性取决于地点、院前早期除颤和急救人员培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bystander placement of automated external defibrillators and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: a propensity score-matched cohort study between 2021 and 2022.

Bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) placement is expected to benefit all out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases, even in the absence of prehospital defibrillation. This study investigated the factors influencing bystander-AED placement and evaluated its impact on neurologically favourable outcomes in bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCA cases receiving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This retrospective cohort study analysed nationwide EMS-transported emergency and OHCA databases (2021-2022), including 22,443 bystander-witnessed, out-of-home OHCAs with bystander CPR, of which 10,324 involved bystander-AED placement. AEDs were placed by bystanders in 25,333 (10.6%) of 238,871 non-EMS-witnessed OHCA cases. Logistic regression showed the associations of prehospital defibrillation, no bystander CPR, male sex, outdoor location, at-home setting, and family- or friend/colleague-witnessed OHCA with lower bystander-AED placement rates. In contrast, rural municipality EMS, daytime, DA-CPR attempt, presumed cardiac aetiology, shockable initial rhythm, conventional bystander CPR, and care/medical facilities were associated with higher rates. Neurologically favourable survival was 2.2% for bystander-AED and 2.3% for EMS-AED placement cases within care/medical facilities, compared to 19.5% and 11.6%, respectively, outside these facilities. In both logistic regression analyses after propensity score matching, bystander-AED placement improved outcomes of OHCA outside care/medical facilities only in the presence of prehospital defibrillation (adjusted odds ratio 1.24 [1.04-1.48]) but worsened outcomes of OHCA within the facilities in the absence of prehospital defibrillation (0.73 [0.54-0.99]). Bystander-AED placement was common in care/medical facilities but had limited benefits. The effectiveness of bystander-AED placement depends on location, early prehospital defibrillation, and responder training.

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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信