4.6 Article

Outcomes from sudden cardiac arrest in US high schools: a 2-year prospective study from the National Registry for AED Use in Sports

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 47, 期 18, 页码 1179-+

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092786

关键词

Cardiology Prevention

资金

  1. National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is the leading cause of death in athletes during exercise. The effectiveness of school-based automated external defibrillator (AED) programmes has not been established through a prospective study. Methods A total of 2149 high schools participated in a prospective observational study beginning 1 August 2009, through 31 July 2011. Schools were contacted quarterly and reported all cases of SCA. Of these 95% of schools confirmed their participation for the entire 2-year study period. Cases of SCA were reviewed to confirm the details of the resuscitation. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Results School-based AED programmes were present in 87% of participating schools and in all but one of the schools reporting a case of SCA. Fifty nine cases of SCA were confirmed during the study period including 26 (44%) cases in students and 33 (56%) in adults; 39 (66%) cases occurred at an athletic facility during training or competition; 55 (93%) cases were witnessed and 54 (92%) received prompt cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A defibrillator was applied in 50 (85%) cases and a shock delivered onsite in 39 (66%). Overall, 42 of 59 (71%) SCA victims survived to hospital discharge, including 22 of 26 (85%) students and 20 of 33 (61%) adults. Of 18 student-athletes 16 (89%) and 8 of 9 (89%) adults who arrested during physical activity survived to hospital discharge. Conclusions High school AED programmes demonstrate a high survival rate for students and adults who suffer SCA on school campus. School-based AED programmes are strongly encouraged.

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

4.6
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