Literature DB >> 16945472

Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a pilot study.

Christer Axelsson1, Johan Nestin, Leif Svensson, Asa B Axelsson, Johan Herlitz.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16945472     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.02.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  20 in total

Review 1.  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation using electrically driven devices: a review.

Authors:  Anatol Prinzing; Stefan Eichhorn; Marcus-André Deutsch; Ruediger Lange; Markus Krane
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 2.  [Mechanical resuscitation assist devices].

Authors:  M Fischer; M Breil; M Ihli; M Messelken; S Rauch; J-C Schewe
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report.

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

4.  [Is automated mechanical reanimation helpful? Putting LUCAS® to the test].

Authors:  U Janssens
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 0.840

5.  Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Peter L Wang; Steven C Brooks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-20

Review 6.  Part 7: CPR techniques and devices: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

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

Review 7.  Mechanical CPR devices compared to manual CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and ambulance transport: a systematic review.

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

8.  Adult Basic Life Support: International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

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

9.  The study protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in cardiac arrest) study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation.

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

10.  Submersion, accidental hypothermia and cardiac arrest, mechanical chest compressions as a bridge to final treatment: a case report.

Authors:  Hans Friberg; Malin Rundgren
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 2.953

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.