腹突和背击治疗异物气道阻塞的疗效:MOCHI登记分析

IF 2.4 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Yutaka Igarashi , Tatsuya Norii , Ryuta Nakae , Takashi Tagami , David P Sklar , Shoji Yokobori
{"title":"腹突和背击治疗异物气道阻塞的疗效:MOCHI登记分析","authors":"Yutaka Igarashi ,&nbsp;Tatsuya Norii ,&nbsp;Ryuta Nakae ,&nbsp;Takashi Tagami ,&nbsp;David P Sklar ,&nbsp;Shoji Yokobori","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal thrusts and back blows as initial bystander interventions compared to the absence of bystander intervention in patients with foreign body airway obstruction (FBAO).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, observational study conducted at 25 hospitals in Japan (April 2020–March 2023), including patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting emergency departments with FBAO. The primary outcome was a favorable neurological outcome at 30 days, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2. Secondary outcomes were 30-day survival and success of obstruction relief. We used propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for confounding. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were applied for outcome analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 407 patients, 24 received abdominal thrusts, 76 received back blows, and 175 received no bystander intervention. Median age was 81. After IPTW adjustment, favorable neurological outcomes were significantly more frequent in patient receiving abdominal thrusts (38% vs. 16%; difference 22%, 95% CI 14%–31%) and back blows (31% vs. 16%; difference 15%, 95% CI 8%–23%) compared to no intervention. Back blows were also associated with higher survival (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI, 0.35–0.78), while abdominal thrusts were not (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.40–1.35).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Abdominal thrusts and back blows were both associated with significantly favorable neurological outcomes compared to no intervention. Back blows were additionally associated with higher survival.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 101016"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of abdominal thrusts and back blows for patients with foreign body airway obstruction: MOCHI registry analysis\",\"authors\":\"Yutaka Igarashi ,&nbsp;Tatsuya Norii ,&nbsp;Ryuta Nakae ,&nbsp;Takashi Tagami ,&nbsp;David P Sklar ,&nbsp;Shoji Yokobori\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal thrusts and back blows as initial bystander interventions compared to the absence of bystander intervention in patients with foreign body airway obstruction (FBAO).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a prospective, observational study conducted at 25 hospitals in Japan (April 2020–March 2023), including patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting emergency departments with FBAO. The primary outcome was a favorable neurological outcome at 30 days, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2. Secondary outcomes were 30-day survival and success of obstruction relief. We used propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for confounding. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were applied for outcome analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 407 patients, 24 received abdominal thrusts, 76 received back blows, and 175 received no bystander intervention. Median age was 81. After IPTW adjustment, favorable neurological outcomes were significantly more frequent in patient receiving abdominal thrusts (38% vs. 16%; difference 22%, 95% CI 14%–31%) and back blows (31% vs. 16%; difference 15%, 95% CI 8%–23%) compared to no intervention. Back blows were also associated with higher survival (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI, 0.35–0.78), while abdominal thrusts were not (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.40–1.35).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Abdominal thrusts and back blows were both associated with significantly favorable neurological outcomes compared to no intervention. Back blows were additionally associated with higher survival.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101016\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425001535\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425001535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究旨在评估腹部推力和背部打击作为初始旁观者干预措施在异物气道阻塞(FBAO)患者中的有效性,并与没有旁观者干预进行比较。方法:这是一项前瞻性观察性研究,于2020年4月至2023年3月在日本25家医院进行,包括年龄≥18岁的FBAO急诊科患者。主要结果是30天时良好的神经学结果,定义为大脑表现1或2类。次要结果是30天的生存和阻塞缓解成功。我们使用倾向得分与治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)来调整混杂。结果分析采用Logistic回归和Cox比例风险模型。结果407例患者中,24例接受腹部推搡,76例接受背部打击,175例未接受旁观者干预。中位年龄为81岁。调整IPTW后,接受腹部穿刺的患者出现良好的神经系统预后的频率明显更高(38% vs. 16%;差异22%,95% CI 14%-31%)和背击(31%对16%;差异15%,95% CI 8%-23%)。背部打击也与较高的生存率相关(调整后危险度0.52,95% CI, 0.35-0.78),而腹部打击则无关(调整后危险度0.73,95% CI, 0.40-1.35)。结论与不进行干预相比,腹突和背部打击均具有显著的神经预后。背部打击也与更高的存活率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of abdominal thrusts and back blows for patients with foreign body airway obstruction: MOCHI registry analysis

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of abdominal thrusts and back blows as initial bystander interventions compared to the absence of bystander intervention in patients with foreign body airway obstruction (FBAO).

Methods

This was a prospective, observational study conducted at 25 hospitals in Japan (April 2020–March 2023), including patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting emergency departments with FBAO. The primary outcome was a favorable neurological outcome at 30 days, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2. Secondary outcomes were 30-day survival and success of obstruction relief. We used propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for confounding. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were applied for outcome analysis.

Results

Among 407 patients, 24 received abdominal thrusts, 76 received back blows, and 175 received no bystander intervention. Median age was 81. After IPTW adjustment, favorable neurological outcomes were significantly more frequent in patient receiving abdominal thrusts (38% vs. 16%; difference 22%, 95% CI 14%–31%) and back blows (31% vs. 16%; difference 15%, 95% CI 8%–23%) compared to no intervention. Back blows were also associated with higher survival (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI, 0.35–0.78), while abdominal thrusts were not (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.40–1.35).

Conclusion

Abdominal thrusts and back blows were both associated with significantly favorable neurological outcomes compared to no intervention. Back blows were additionally associated with higher survival.
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
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
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