目的研究初始复苏时不同通气方式对成人院内心脏骤停(in-hospital cardiac arrest, IHCA)患者短期预后的影响。
方法回顾性纳入福建医科大学附属第一医院2019年9月至2021年12月所有住院及入住急诊抢救室、观察室且年龄≥18岁成人患者,记录期间所有发生IHCA且复苏期间均接受气道管理的患者的一般资料、基础疾病及短期预后等指标。根据复苏时接受的通气方式分为非高级气道组和高级气道组。主要结局为自主循环恢复(return of spontaneous circulation, ROSC)≥20 min,次要结局为出院存活及出院存活良好神经功能。Logistic回归分析不同通气方式对成人IHCA患者短期预后的影响,并构建成人IHCA患者ROSC的预测模型,用受试者工作特征曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)评估模型的预测效能。
结果最终纳入285例成人IHCA患者。其中非高级气道组75例,高级气道组210例。所有患者中,ROSC≥20 min的127例,出院存活51例,出院存活良好神经功能35例。Logistic回归分析显示通气方式、肾上腺素使用剂量,骤停地点是影响成人IHCA患者ROSC的独立危险因素;与非高级气道相比,高级气道管理与ROSC率更高相关( OR=3.698,95% CI: 1.844~7.419, P<0.001),但不同通气方式对成人IHCA患者出院存活( OR=1.097,95% CI: 0.506~2.376, P=0.815)及出院存活良好神经功能( OR=0.548,95% CI: 0.224~1.339, P=0.187)的影响差异无统计学意义。将通气方式、肾上腺素使用剂量,骤停地点作为预测变量代入多因素Logistic回归模型中构建成人IHCA患者ROSC的预测模型,绘制受试者操作特性(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线,得出模型AUC值0.735 ( 0.678~0.793)。亚组分析显示,早期高级气道管理能提高非心源性心脏骤停患者ROSC率,但不能改善心源性心脏骤停患者ROSC率,且与患者更低的出院存活及更差的出院存活神经功能相关。
结论与非高级气道相比,复苏时高级气道管理可提高成人IHCA患者ROSC率,但并不能改善患者出院存活及出院存活良好神经功能。通气方式、肾上腺素使用剂量,骤停地点是影响成人IHCA患者ROSC的独立危险因素,以上述指标构建成人IHCA患者ROSC的预测模型具有中度的预测能力。
ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of different ventilation modalities during initial resuscitation on short-term outcomes in adult patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).
MethodsThis retrospective study included adult patients (age ≥18 years) admitted to the emergency resuscitation or observation units of our hospital from September 2019 to December 2021. Demographic data, comorbidities, and short-term outcomes of IHCA patients who underwent airway management during resuscitation were recorded. Participants were stratified into non-advanced airway and advanced airway groups based on ventilation modality. The primary outcome was defined as sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) ≥20 min, and secondary outcomes included survival to discharge and favorable neurological status at discharge. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the impact of different ventilation modalities on short-term outcomes among adult IHCA patients. and developed a prediction model of ROSC for adult IHCA patients, and its predictive performance was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic.
ResultsAmong 285 IHCA patients (non-advanced airway: n=75; advanced airway: n=210), 127 achieved ROSC ≥20 min, 51 survived to discharge, and 35 had favorable neurological outcomes. Logistic regression identified ventilation modality, epinephrine dose, and arrest location as independent predictors of ROSC in adult IHCA patients. Advanced airway management demonstrated significantly higher ROSC rates compared to non-advanced interventions ( OR=3.698, 95% CI:1.844-7.419, P<0.001). However, no significant associations were observed between ventilation modalities and survival to discharge ( OR=1.097, 95% CI:0.506-2.376, P=0.815) or favorable neurological outcomes at discharge ( OR=0.548, 95% CI:0.224-1.339, P=0.187). Ventilation modality, epinephrine dose, and arrest location were incorporated as predictors in a multivariable logistic regression model to develop a ROSC prediction model for adult IHCA patients. The discriminative ability of model was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, yielding an AUC of 0.735 (95% CI:0.678-0.793). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that early advanced airway management significantly enhanced ROSC rates in noncardiac etiology cases, whereas no such benefit was observed in cardiac etiology cases, while this intervention correlated with decreased survival to discharge rates and deteriorated neurological outcomes among survivors.
ConclusionsAdvanced airway management demonstrated improved ROSC rates in adult IHCA cases, while showing no significant improvement in survival rates or favorable neurological outcomes at discharge. Ventilation modality, epinephrine dose, and arrest location are independent predictors of ROSC. A model integrating these factors exhibits moderate predictive utility for IHCA outcomes.
陈植炜,官运杰,张舒娇,等. 初始复苏时不同通气方式对院内心脏骤停患者短期预后的影响[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志,2025,34(03):382-388.
DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0282.2025.03.015版权归中华医学会所有。
未经授权,不得转载、摘编本刊文章,不得使用本刊的版式设计。
除非特别声明,本刊刊出的所有文章不代表中华医学会和本刊编委会的观点。
陈植炜:研究设计、论文撰写及修改;官运杰:数据收集;张舒娇:统计学分析及文献支持;吕慧洪:数据整理;林志鸿:研究设计、论文审阅、指导及修改

你好,我可以帮助您更好的了解本文,请向我提问您关注的问题。