心肺复苏中阿托品的地位

作者 添加时间 2011/12/9 点击次数 17464

“2010年美国心脏病协会(AHA)心肺复苏和心血管急救指南”和“2010年欧洲复苏委员会(ERC)心肺复苏指南”不再推荐阿托品作为无脉心电活动(PEA)或心室停搏(asystole)时的常规治疗药物,这是继2005年高级心血管生命支持(ACLS)指南后的主要改变之一。
硫酸阿托品可阻断或逆转胆碱能介导的心率下降和房室结传导的降低,是治疗急性症状性心动过缓的一线药物(Class Ⅱa)。成人临床试验表明静脉用阿托品可提高心率,改善心动过缓相关的症状和体征,应考虑作为症状性窦性心动过缓/房室结水平传导阻滞或窦性停搏患者等待经皮或经静脉起搏器治疗时的临时治疗措施。但是,2010年指南指出目前没有前瞻性对照临床研究验证阿托品用于心室停搏型或缓慢心率的PEA型心脏骤停的效果;较低水平的临床研究提供的证据显示,PEA/心室停搏期间常规使用阿托品不太可能有治疗益处(Class Ⅱb, LOE B)。因此, 2010年心肺复苏指南已从心跳骤停流程图删除了阿托品。
而最新于2011年Circulation Journal发表的论著则证实,医院外PEA型心脏停搏的成年患者使用阿托品,不会产生神经学方面的远期效益; PEA型成年患者不会从阿托品的治疗中获益。日本SOS-KANTO研究组针对7448位PEA型成年患者进行评估,评价标准为心脏停搏30天后患者的神经学方面的获益情况。在6419位心室停搏患者中,肾上腺素和阿托品组(n=1378)与单用肾上腺素组(n=5048)比较,自发循环恢复(ROSC)率显著增加,校正后优势比为1.6(95%可信区间1.4-1.7,P<0.0001);但是两组30天的神经学获益情况类似,校正后优势比为0.6(95%可信区间0.2-1.7,P=0.37)。在1029位无脉电活动患者中,两组的自发循环恢复率和30天的神经学获益情况均类似;而肾上腺素和阿托品组与单用肾上腺素组比较,30天存活率显著降低,校正后优势比为0.4(95%可信区间0.2-0.9,P=0.016)。
因此,根据2010年AHA的心肺复苏指南,无脉心电活动或心室停搏时,阿托品不再推荐作为的常规治疗药物;一旦有可能,可给予血管加压药,其主要目的是增加CPR期间心肌和脑的血流灌注,以及恢复自主循环(Class Ⅱb, LOE A)。
                                                                                                                                                    
Background: The 2005 guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have recommended that administration of atropine can be considered for non-shockable rhythm, but there are insufficient data in humans.
Methods and Results: The effects of atropine were assessed in 7,448 adults with non-shockable rhythm from the SOS-KANTO study. The primary endpoint was a 30-day favorable neurological outcome after cardiac arrest. In the 6,419 adults with asystole, the epinephrine with atropine group (n=1,378) had a significantly higher return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate than the epinephrine alone group (n=5,048) with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–1.7, P<0.0001), but the 2 groups had similar 30-day favorable neurological outcome with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.6 (95%CI 0.2–1.7; P=0.37). In the 1,029 adults with pulseless electrical activity (PEA), the 2 groups had similar rates of ROSC and 30-day favorable neurological outcome, and the epinephrine with atropine group had a significantly lower 30-day survival rate than the epinephrine alone group with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.4 (95%CI 0.2–0.9, P=0.016).
Conclusions: Administration of atropine had no long-term neurological benefit in adults with out-of-hospital
cardiac arrest due to non- shockable rhythm. Atropine is not useful for adults with PEA. (Circ J 2011; 75: 580 –
588)

    评论新闻

    用户名: 密码: 注册
    评论