| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bång, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Forskning och utveckling
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Prehospital akutsjukvård. - : Liber AB. - 9789147084487 ; , s. 461-468
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Henriksson, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Knowledge and attitudes toward seeking medical care for AMI-symptoms
- 2009
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cardiology. - 1874-1754. ; 147:2, s. 224-227
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Time is crucial when an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) occurs, but patients often wait before seeking medical care. AIM: To investigate and compare patients' and relatives' knowledge of AMI, attitudes toward seeking medical care, and intended behaviour if AMI-symptoms occur. METHODS: The present study was a descriptive, multicentre study. Participants were AMI-patients
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Axelsson, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Characteristics and outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with the emphasis on availability for intervention trials
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier Ireland Ltd. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM: To describe all patients treated for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) according to the Utstein criteria and their characteristics and outcome with emphasis on whether they were available for early intervention trials. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a study where data were collected prospectively. SETTING: The Municipality of Goteborg/Molndal in Sweden. PATIENTS: All patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Municipality of Goteborg/Molndal in whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was attempted between May 2003 and May 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Part of the study cohort, i.e. patients with a witnessed, non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were distributed (cluster) to mechanical (LUCAS) or manual chest compression. RESULTS: The overall survival to discharge from hospital among the 508 patients was 8.5%. The corresponding value for non-cardiac cases was 5.1% and for cardiac cases if crew witnessed 16.1%, bystander witnessed 12.7% and non-witnessed 1.4%. Fifty-nine percent of the patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the trial and had no exclusion criteria and 9.7% of these survived to discharge. Ten percent of patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria but were excluded and 20.4% survived to discharge. Thirty-one percent of patients did not fulfil the inclusion criteria and 2.5% survived. Among patients included in the LUCAS group, many of the survivors, 10/13 (77%), experienced a rapid return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) before the application of the device. CONCLUSION: Among patients with OHCA in whom CPR was started 8.5% survived to hospital discharge and 59% were theoretically available for an early intervention trial. These patients have a different outcome compared with patients not available. However, among those available, the majority of survivors had a rapid ROSC before the application of the intervention (LUCAS). This raises concerns about the potential for early intervention trials to improve outcome after OHCA.
|
|
| 9. |
- Axelsson, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a pilot study.
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier Ireland Ltd. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 71:1, s. 47-55
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM: To evaluate the outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after the introduction of mechanical chest compression (MCC) compared with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) in two emergency medical service (EMS) systems. METHODS: The inclusion criterion was witnessed OHCA. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, the following judged etiologies behind OHCA: trauma, pregnancy, hypothermia, intoxication, hanging and drowning or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to the arrival of the advanced life support (ALS) unit. Two MCC devices were allocated during six-month periods between four ALS units for a period of two years (cluster randomisation). RESULTS: In all, 328 patients fulfilled the criteria for participation and 159 were allocated to the MCC tier (the device was used in 66% of cases) and 169 to the SCPR tier. In the MCC tier, 51% had ROSC (primary end-point) versus 51% in the SCPR tier. The corresponding values for hospital admission alive (secondary end-point) were 38% and 37% (NS). In the subset of patients in whom the device was used, the percentage who had ROSC was 49% versus 50% in a control group matched for age, initial rhythm, aetiology, bystander-/crew-witnessed status and delay to CPR. The percentage of patients discharged alive from hospital after OHCA was 8% versus 10% (NS) for all patients and 2% versus 4%, respectively (NS) for the patients in the subset (where the device was used and the matched control population). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, the results did not support the hypothesis that the introduction of mechanical chest compression in OHCA improves outcome. However, there is room for further improvement in the use of the device. The hypothesis that this will improve outcome needs to be tested in further prospective trials
|
|
| 10. |
- Bohm, K, et al.
(författare)
-
Survival is similar after standard treatment and chest compression only in out-of-hospital bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 116:25, s. 2908-2912
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the 1-month survival rates among patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who had been given bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in relation to whether they had received standard CPR with chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation or chest compression only. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who received bystander CPR and who were reported to the Swedish Cardiac Arrest Register between 1990 and 2005 were included. Crew-witnessed cases were excluded. Among 11,275 patients, 73% (n=8209) received standard CPR, and 10% (n=1145) received chest compression only. There was no significant difference in 1-month survival between patients who received standard CPR (1-month survival=7.2%) and those who received chest compression only (1-month survival=6.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who received bystander CPR, there was no significant difference in 1-month survival between a standard CPR program with chest compression plus mouth-to-mouth ventilation and a simplified version of CPR with chest compression only.
|
|
