当前位置: X-MOL 学术Resuscitation › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Multi-phase implementation of automated external defibrillator use by nurses during in-hospital cardiac arrest and its impact on survival
Resuscitation ( IF 6.5 ) Pub Date : 2024-02-19 , DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110148
Christian Vaillancourt , Manya Charette , Chelsea Lanos , Justin Godbout , Hannah Buhariwalla , Jennifer Dale-Tam , Marie-Joe Nemnom , Jamie Brehaut , George Wells , Ian Stiell

We sought to evaluate the impact of a medical directive allowing nurses to use defibrillators in automated external defibrillator-mode (AED) on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) outcomes. We completed a health record review of consecutive IHCA for which resuscitation was attempted using a pragmatic multi-phase before-after cohort design. We report Utstein outcomes before (Jan.2012–Aug.2013;Control) the implementation of the AED medical directive following usual practice (Sept.2013–Aug.2016;Phase 1), and following the addition of a theory-based educational video (Sept.2016–Dec.2017;Phase 2). There were 753 IHCA with the following characteristics (Before n = 195; Phase 1n = 372; Phase 2n = 186): mean age 66, 60.0% male, 79.3% witnessed, 29.1% noncardiac-monitored medical ward, 23.9% cardiac cause, and initial ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (VF/VT) 27.2%. Comparing the Before, Phase 1 and 2: an AED was used 0 time (0.0%), 21 times (5.7%), 15 times (8.1%); mean times to 1st analysis were 7 min, 3 min and 1 min (p < 0.0001); mean times to 1st shock were 12 min, 10 min and 8 min (p = 0.32); return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was 63.6%, 59.4% and 58.1% (p = 0.77); survival was 24.6%, 21.0% and 25.8% (p = 0.37). Among IHCA in VF/VT (n = 165), time to 1st analysis and 1st shock decreased by 5 min (p = 0.01) and 6 min (p = 0.23), and ROSC and survival increased by 3.0% (p = 0.80) and 15.6% (p = 0.31). There was no survival benefit overall (1.2%; p = 0.37) or within noncardiac-monitored areas (-7.2%; p = 0.24). The implementation of a medical directive allowing for AED use by nurses successfully improved key outcomes for IHCA victims, particularly following the theory-based education video and among the VF/VT group.

中文翻译:

护士在院内心脏骤停期间使用自动体外除颤器的多阶段实施及其对生存的影响

我们试图评估允许护士在自动体外除颤器模式 (AED) 下使用除颤器的医疗指令对院内心脏骤停 (IHCA) 结果的影响。我们完成了连续 IHCA 的健康记录审查,并使用务实的多阶段前后队列设计尝试进行复苏。我们按照惯例(2013 年 9 月至 2016 年 8 月;第一阶段),并添加基于理论的教育视频后,报告了 AED 医疗指令实施之前(2012 年 1 月至 2013 年 8 月;对照)的 Utstein 结果(2016年9月-2017年12月;第2阶段)。 753 例 IHCA 具有以下特征(之前 n = 195;第 1n 期 = 372;第 2n = 186 期):平均年龄 66,60.0% 男性,79.3% 目击者,29.1% 非心脏监测内科病房,23.9% 心脏原因,初始心室颤动/心动过速 (VF/VT) 为 27.2%。比较之前、第一阶段和第二阶段:使用 AED 0 次(0.0%)、21 次(5.7%)、15 次(8.1%);第一次分析的平均时间分别为 7 分钟、3 分钟和 1 分钟 (p < 0.0001);第一次电击的平均时间分别为 12 分钟、10 分钟和 8 分钟 (p = 0.32);自主循环恢复 (ROSC) 分别为 63.6%、59.4% 和 58.1% (p = 0.77);生存率分别为 24.6%、21.0% 和 25.8% (p = 0.37)。在 VF/VT (n = 165) 的 IHCA 中,第一次分析和第一次电击的时间分别缩短了 5 分钟 (p = 0.01) 和 6 分钟 (p = 0.23),ROSC 和生存率增加了 3.0% (p = 0.80)和 15.6% (p = 0.31)。总体(1.2%;p = 0.37)或非心脏监测区域(-7.2%;p = 0.24)没有生存获益。允许护士使用 AED 的医疗指令的实施成功地改善了 IHCA 受害者的主要结果,特别是在基于理论的教育视频之后以及 VF/VT 组中。
更新日期:2024-02-19
down
wechat
bug