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.
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.
Authors: Venkataraman Anantharaman; Boon Lui Benjamin Ng; Shiang Hu Ang; Chun Yue Francis Lee; Siew Hon Benjamin Leong; Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Siang Jin Terrance Chua; Antony Charles Rabind; Nagaraj Baglody Anjali; Ying Hao Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Diana M Cave; Raul J Gazmuri; Charles W Otto; Vinay M Nadkarni; Adam Cheng; Steven C Brooks; Mohamud Daya; Robert M Sutton; Richard Branson; Mary Fran Hazinski Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Kevin E Mackey; Zhong Cheng Zhang; Hideharu Tanaka; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Robert Swor; Sang Do Shin Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Theresa M Olasveengen; Mary E Mancini; Gavin D Perkins; Suzanne Avis; Steven Brooks; Maaret Castrén; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Keith Couper; Raffo Escalante; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Kevin K C Hung; Peter Kudenchuk; Swee Han Lim; Chika Nishiyama; Giuseppe Ristagno; Federico Semeraro; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Christian Vaillancourt; Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Sten Rubertsson; Johan Silfverstolpe; Liselott Rehn; Thomas Nyman; Rob Lichtveld; Rene Boomars; Wendy Bruins; Björn Ahlstedt; Helena Puggioli; Erik Lindgren; David Smekal; Gunnar Skoog; Robert Kastberg; Anna Lindblad; David Halliwell; Martyn Box; Fredrik Arnwald; Bjarne Madsen Hardig; Douglas Chamberlain; Johan Herlitz; Rolf Karlsten Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 2.953