{"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}
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.
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.