4.5 Article

One year experience with fast track algorithm in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 144, 期 -, 页码 157-165

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.07.035

关键词

Refractory cardiac arrest; Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Ongoing CPR; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; Neurological outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Overall prognosis in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains poor, especially when return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) cannot be achieved at the scene. It is unclear if rapid transport to the hospital with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves outcome in patients with refractory OHCA (rOHCA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a novel fast track algorithm (FTA) in patients with rOHCA. Methods: This prospective single-center study analysed outcome in rOHCA patients treated with FTA. Historical patients before FTA-implementation served as controls. rOHCA was defined as: persistent shockable rhythm after three shocks and 300 mg of amiodarone or persistent non-shockable rhythm and continuous CPR for 10 min without ROSC after exclusion of treatable arrest causes. Results: 110 consecutive patients with rOHCA (mean age 56 +/- 14 years) were included. 40 patients (36%) were treated with FTA, 70 patients (64%) served as historical controls. Pre-hospital time was significantly shorter after FTA implementation (69 +/- 18 vs. 79 +/- 24 min, p = 0.02). Favourable neurological outcome (defined as cerebral performance categories Score 1 or 2) was significantly more frequent in FTA patients (27.5% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.038). FTA-implementation showed a trend towards improved mortality (70.0% vs. 82.9%, p = 0.151). Extracorporeal Life Support was similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Our study suggests that a rapid transport algorithm with ongoing CPR is feasible, improves neurological outcome and may improve survival in carefully selected patients with rOHCA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据