Literature DB >> 16442386

Effects of thrombolysis during out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Karl H Stadlbauer1, Anette C Krismer, H Richard Arntz, Viktoria D Mayr, Hannes G Lienhart, Bernd W Böttiger, Beate Jahn, Karl H Lindner, Volker Wenzel.   

Abstract

In this post hoc analysis, we assessed effects of thrombolysis during out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The original study was designed as a double-blinded, prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. In this report, 1,219 patients were randomized, but 33 patients were excluded due to missing study drug codes. Thus, 1,186 patients were analyzed based on receipt (n = 99) versus nonreceipt (n = 1,087) of thrombolysis; the primary end point was hospital admission, and the secondary end point was hospital discharge. Patients who received thrombolysis versus those who did not were significantly younger (mean +/- SD 62.7 +/- 13.3 vs 66.5 +/- 14.3 years of age, p = 0.01) and more likely to have had an acute myocardial infarction (75.3% vs 54.6%, p < 0.01) or pulmonary embolism (20.2% vs 12.0%, p = 0.03) as the suspected underlying cause for cardiac arrest. In patients who underwent thrombolysis versus those who did not, cardiac arrest was more often witnessed (86.9% vs 77.5%, p = 0.03), initial ventricular fibrillation was more likely (59.6% vs 38.0%, p < 0.01), and a short estimated interval (0 to 5 minutes) between collapse and initiation of basic life support was more likely (51.3% vs 29.2%, p < 0.01). In patients who received thrombolysis, sodium bicarbonate (45.5% vs 33.0%, p = 0.01), lidocaine (32.3% vs 18.1%, p < 0.01), and amiodarone (30.3% vs 12.2%, p < 0.01) were administered significantly more often. Hospital admission rates were significantly higher in patients who underwent thrombolysis than in patients who did not (45.5% vs 32.7%, p = 0.01), and there was a trend to higher hospital discharge rates (14.1% vs 9.5%, p = 0.14). In patients who had suspected myocardial infarction, hospital admission and discharge rates were significantly higher in patients who underwent thrombolysis than in patients who did not. In logistic regression models after adjusting for confounding variables (e.g., age, initial electrocardiographic rhythm, and initiation of basic life support), hospital admission and discharge rates did not differ significantly. In conclusion, even when being employed in patients with a potentially better chance to survive, thrombolysis in patients with cardiac arrest resulted in an increased hospital admission but not discharge rate in this post hoc analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16442386     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.08.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  4 in total

1.  Thrombolytic therapy in cardiac arrest caused by cardiac etiologies or presumed pulmonary embolism: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Omar A Alshaya; Abdulrahman I Alshaya; Hisham A Badreldin; Sarah T Albalawi; Sarah T Alghonaim; Majed S Al Yami
Journal:  Res Pract Thromb Haemost       Date:  2022-06-17

2.  International Survey of Thrombolytic Use for Treatment of Cardiac Arrest Due to Massive Pulmonary Embolism.

Authors:  Megan A Rech; Michelle Horng; Jenna M Holzhausen; Megan A Van Berkel; Sarah S Sokol; Sarah Peppard; Drayton A Hammond
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2020-06-09

3.  Current pharmacological advances in the treatment of cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Andry Papastylianou; S Mentzelopoulos
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2011-11-20       Impact factor: 1.112

4.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Return of Spontaneous Circulation Reduces the In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  Jingcong Zhang; Haixia Xiong; Jie Chen; Qiuping Zou; Xiaoxing Liao; Yujie Li; Chunlin Hu
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-10-28
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.