Department of Emergency Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, 25, Daehakbyeongwon-ro, Ulsan, Dong-gu, 44033, Republic of Korea.
BMC Emerg Med. 2024 May 6;24(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12873-024-00998-9.
This study compared out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patient outcomes based on intravenous (IV) access and prehospital epinephrine use.
A retrospective study in Ulsan, South Korea, from January 2017 to December 2022, analyzed adult nontraumatic OHCA cases. Patients were grouped: Group 1 (no IV attempts), Group 2 (failed IV access), Group 3 (successful IV access without epinephrine), and Group 4 (successful IV access with epinephrine), with comparisons using logistic regression analysis.
Among 2,656 patients, Group 4 had significantly lower survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.520, 95% CI 0.346-0.782, p = 0.002) and favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.292, 95% CI 0.140-0.611, p = 0.001) than Group 1. Groups 2 and 3 showed insignificant survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.814, 95% CI 0.566-1.171, p = 0.268) and (adjusted OR 1.069, 95% CI 0.810-1.412, p = 0.636) and favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.585, 95% CI 0.299-1.144, p = 0.117) and (adjusted OR 1.075, 95% CI 0.689-1.677, p = 0.751). In the shockable rhythm group, Group 3 had better survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 1.700, 95% CI 1.044-2.770, p = 0.033).
Successful IV access with epinephrine showed worse outcomes in both rhythm groups than no IV attempts. Outcomes for failed IV and successful IV access without epinephrine were inconclusive. Importantly, successful IV access without epinephrine showed favorable survival to hospital discharge in the shockable rhythm group, warranting further research into IV access for fluid resuscitation in shockable rhythm OHCA patients.
本研究比较了基于静脉(IV)通路和院前肾上腺素使用的院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的结局。
这是一项在韩国蔚山进行的回顾性研究,时间为 2017 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月,分析了成人非创伤性 OHCA 病例。患者被分为以下几组:第 1 组(未尝试 IV 通路)、第 2 组(IV 通路失败)、第 3 组(IV 通路成功但未使用肾上腺素)和第 4 组(IV 通路成功且使用了肾上腺素),使用逻辑回归分析进行比较。
在 2656 名患者中,第 4 组患者出院时的存活率(校正比值比 0.520,95%置信区间 0.346-0.782,p=0.002)和良好的神经功能结局(校正比值比 0.292,95%置信区间 0.140-0.611,p=0.001)显著低于第 1 组。第 2 组和第 3 组患者出院时的存活率(校正比值比 0.814,95%置信区间 0.566-1.171,p=0.268)和(校正比值比 1.069,95%置信区间 0.810-1.412,p=0.636)以及良好的神经功能结局(校正比值比 0.585,95%置信区间 0.299-1.144,p=0.117)和(校正比值比 1.075,95%置信区间 0.689-1.677,p=0.751)均无显著差异。在可电击节律组中,第 3 组患者出院时的存活率更高(校正比值比 1.700,95%置信区间 1.044-2.770,p=0.033)。
在两种节律组中,IV 通路联合肾上腺素治疗的效果均不如未尝试 IV 通路。IV 通路失败和 IV 通路成功但未使用肾上腺素的效果尚无定论。重要的是,在可电击节律组中,IV 通路成功但未使用肾上腺素治疗的患者出院时的存活率更高,这表明需要进一步研究在可电击节律 OHCA 患者中进行 IV 通路以进行液体复苏。