Literature DB >> 19716640

Mechanical active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (P(ET)CO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

C Axelsson1, T Karlsson, A B Axelsson, J Herlitz.   

Abstract

AIM: In animal and human studies, measuring the pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (P(ET)CO2) has been shown to be a practical non-invasive method that correlates well with the pulmonary blood flow and cardiac output (CO) generated during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study aims to compare mechanical active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR with standard CPR according to P(ET)CO2 among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), during CPR and with standardised ventilation.
METHODS: This prospective, on a cluster level, pseudo-randomised pilot trial took place in the Municipality of Göteborg. During a 2-year period, all patients aged >18 years suffering an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of presumed cardiac etiology were enrolled. The present analysis included only tracheally intubated patients in whom P(ET)CO2 was measured for 15 min or until the detection of a pulse-giving rhythm.
RESULTS: In all, 126 patients participated in the evaluation, 64 patients in the mechanical chest compression group and 62 patients in the control group. The group receiving mechanical ACD-CPR obtained the significantly highest P(ET)CO2 values according to the average (p=0.04), initial (p=0.01) and minimum (p=0.01) values. We found no significant difference according to the maximum value between groups.
CONCLUSION: In this hypothesis generating study mechanical ACD-CPR compared with manual CPR generated the highest initial, minimum and average value of P(ET)CO2. Whether these data can be repeated and furthermore be associated with an improved outcome after OHCA need to be confirmed in a large prospective randomised trial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19716640     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.08.006

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

Review 4.  Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Lei Jiang; Jin-Song Zhang
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2011

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.  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

7.  The dynamic pattern of end-tidal carbon dioxide during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: difference between asphyxial cardiac arrest and ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Katja Lah; Miljenko Križmarić; Stefek Grmec
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 9.097

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.  Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial.

Authors:  Robert Ruemmler; Jakob Stein; Bastian Duenges; Miriam Renz; Erik Kristoffer Hartmann
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.