先前AED休克后手动除颤的能量水平。

IF 4.6 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Frans Dammers, Bas J Verkaik, Remy Stieglis, Mette Ekkel, Christian van der Werf, Hanno L Tan, Patrick Schober, Hans van Schuppen
{"title":"先前AED休克后手动除颤的能量水平。","authors":"Frans Dammers, Bas J Verkaik, Remy Stieglis, Mette Ekkel, Christian van der Werf, Hanno L Tan, Patrick Schober, Hans van Schuppen","doi":"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>European guidelines suggest an escalating defibrillation energy protocol for cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with a shockable rhythm. Our regional manual defibrillators are by default set to deliver 200J for the initial shock and 360J for subsequent shocks. In case of a prior AED shock, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel need to deliberately adjust the energy level to 360J before delivering the first shock with their manual defibrillator to adhere to the escalating energy protocol. We investigated adherence to this escalating energy protocol by EMS and the association with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from the ARREST-registry in the Netherlands. We analysed OHCA cases in adults with shockable rhythms who had received at least one shock from an AED and from a manual defibrillator. The primary outcome was the adherence to the escalating energy protocol. Secondary outcomes were the relationships of adherence with various clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 827 cases, adherence to the escalating energy protocol was 20.3% (95% CI 17.7%-23.2%). No baseline characteristics were significantly associated with increased adherence. Shockable rhythms were terminated by the first manual defibrillator shock in 521/659 (79.1%) cases with 200J and 139/168 (82.7%) cases with 360J (p=0.33). Overall 30-day survival rate was 38.4%. Adherence to protocol was not significantly associated with differences in clinical outcomes after multivariable analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adherence to escalating energy protocol by EMS during transition from defibrillation with AED to manual defibrillator is limited. Our data did not provide evidence for a relationship between adherence and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":21052,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation","volume":" ","pages":"110841"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Energy levels in manual defibrillation after prior AED shock.\",\"authors\":\"Frans Dammers, Bas J Verkaik, Remy Stieglis, Mette Ekkel, Christian van der Werf, Hanno L Tan, Patrick Schober, Hans van Schuppen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>European guidelines suggest an escalating defibrillation energy protocol for cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with a shockable rhythm. Our regional manual defibrillators are by default set to deliver 200J for the initial shock and 360J for subsequent shocks. In case of a prior AED shock, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel need to deliberately adjust the energy level to 360J before delivering the first shock with their manual defibrillator to adhere to the escalating energy protocol. We investigated adherence to this escalating energy protocol by EMS and the association with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from the ARREST-registry in the Netherlands. We analysed OHCA cases in adults with shockable rhythms who had received at least one shock from an AED and from a manual defibrillator. The primary outcome was the adherence to the escalating energy protocol. Secondary outcomes were the relationships of adherence with various clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 827 cases, adherence to the escalating energy protocol was 20.3% (95% CI 17.7%-23.2%). No baseline characteristics were significantly associated with increased adherence. Shockable rhythms were terminated by the first manual defibrillator shock in 521/659 (79.1%) cases with 200J and 139/168 (82.7%) cases with 360J (p=0.33). Overall 30-day survival rate was 38.4%. Adherence to protocol was not significantly associated with differences in clinical outcomes after multivariable analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adherence to escalating energy protocol by EMS during transition from defibrillation with AED to manual defibrillator is limited. Our data did not provide evidence for a relationship between adherence and clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"110841\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110841\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110841","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:欧洲指南建议对院外心脏骤停(OHCA)伴有震荡性心律的病例采用逐步升级的除颤能量方案。我们的区域手动除颤器默认设置为初始电击输出200J,后续电击输出360J。如果先前有AED电击,紧急医疗服务(EMS)人员需要在使用手动除颤器进行第一次电击之前故意将能量水平调整到360J,以遵守能量升级协议。我们调查了EMS对这种升级能量方案的依从性及其与临床结果的关系。方法:数据收集自荷兰的ARREST-registry。我们分析了至少接受过一次AED和手动除颤器电击的具有震荡性心律的成人OHCA病例。主要结果是对能量升级方案的遵守。次要结果是依从性与各种临床结果的关系。结果:827例患者中,坚持能量升级治疗方案的比例为20.3% (95% CI 17.7%-23.2%)。没有基线特征与依从性增加显著相关。200J和360J患者分别有521/659例(79.1%)和139/168例(82.7%)通过首次人工除颤器电击终止了可震性心律(p=0.33)。总30天生存率为38.4%。在多变量分析后,对方案的依从性与临床结果的差异没有显著相关。结论:在从AED除颤过渡到手动除颤器的过程中,EMS对能量升级方案的依从性是有限的。我们的数据没有提供依从性和临床结果之间关系的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Energy levels in manual defibrillation after prior AED shock.

Aim: European guidelines suggest an escalating defibrillation energy protocol for cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with a shockable rhythm. Our regional manual defibrillators are by default set to deliver 200J for the initial shock and 360J for subsequent shocks. In case of a prior AED shock, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel need to deliberately adjust the energy level to 360J before delivering the first shock with their manual defibrillator to adhere to the escalating energy protocol. We investigated adherence to this escalating energy protocol by EMS and the association with clinical outcomes.

Methods: Data were collected from the ARREST-registry in the Netherlands. We analysed OHCA cases in adults with shockable rhythms who had received at least one shock from an AED and from a manual defibrillator. The primary outcome was the adherence to the escalating energy protocol. Secondary outcomes were the relationships of adherence with various clinical outcomes.

Results: In 827 cases, adherence to the escalating energy protocol was 20.3% (95% CI 17.7%-23.2%). No baseline characteristics were significantly associated with increased adherence. Shockable rhythms were terminated by the first manual defibrillator shock in 521/659 (79.1%) cases with 200J and 139/168 (82.7%) cases with 360J (p=0.33). Overall 30-day survival rate was 38.4%. Adherence to protocol was not significantly associated with differences in clinical outcomes after multivariable analyses.

Conclusion: Adherence to escalating energy protocol by EMS during transition from defibrillation with AED to manual defibrillator is limited. Our data did not provide evidence for a relationship between adherence and clinical outcomes.

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
Resuscitation 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
18.50%
发文量
556
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Resuscitation is a monthly international and interdisciplinary medical journal. The papers published deal with the aetiology, pathophysiology and prevention of cardiac arrest, resuscitation training, clinical resuscitation, and experimental resuscitation research, although papers relating to animal studies will be published only if they are of exceptional interest and related directly to clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Papers relating to trauma are published occasionally but the majority of these concern traumatic cardiac arrest.
×
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