Literature DB >> 26623121

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation using electrically driven devices: a review.

Anatol Prinzing1, Stefan Eichhorn1, Marcus-André Deutsch1, Ruediger Lange1, Markus Krane1.   

Abstract

In the treatment of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) immediate resuscitation with chest compressions and ventilation is crucial for survival. As manual resuscitation is associated with several drawbacks, mechanical resuscitation devices have been developed to support resuscitation teams. These devices are able to achieve better perfusion of heart and brain in laboratory settings, but real world experience showed no significant improved survival in comparison to manual resuscitation. This review will focus on two mechanical resuscitation devices, the Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) and AutoPulse devices and the actual literature available. In conclusion, the general use of mechanical resuscitation devices cannot be recommended at the moment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AutoPulse; Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS); Mechanical resuscitation

Year:  2015        PMID: 26623121      PMCID: PMC4635271          DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.10.40

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Dis        ISSN: 2072-1439            Impact factor:   2.895


  49 in total

1.  Resuscitation after cardiac arrest: a 3-phase time-sensitive model.

Authors:  Myron L Weisfeldt; Lance B Becker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Autopsy is more sensitive than computed tomography in detection of LUCAS-CPR related non-dislocated chest fractures.

Authors:  Daniel Oberladstaetter; Patrick Braun; Martin C Freund; Walter Rabl; Peter Paal; Michael Baubin
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 5.262

3.  Sudden cardiac death in the United States, 1989 to 1998.

Authors:  Z J Zheng; J B Croft; W H Giles; G A Mensah
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-10-30       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.

Authors:  Marcus Eng Hock Ong; Joseph P Ornato; David P Edwards; Harinder S Dhindsa; Al M Best; Caesar S Ines; Scott Hickey; Bryan Clark; Dean C Williams; Robert G Powell; Jerry L Overton; Mary Ann Peberdy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Gavin D Perkins; Ranjit Lall; Tom Quinn; Charles D Deakin; Matthew W Cooke; Jessica Horton; Sarah E Lamb; Anne-Marie Slowther; Malcolm Woollard; Andy Carson; Mike Smyth; Richard Whitfield; Amanda Williams; Helen Pocock; John J M Black; John Wright; Kyee Han; Simon Gates
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  No difference in autopsy detected injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions compared with mechanical compressions with the LUCAS device--a pilot study.

Authors:  David Smekal; Jakob Johansson; Tibor Huzevka; Sten Rubertsson
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.262

Review 7.  Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Steven C Brooks; Nizar Hassan; Blair L Bigham; Laurie J Morrison
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-02-27

8.  Mechanisms by which epinephrine augments cerebral and myocardial perfusion during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in dogs.

Authors:  J R Michael; A D Guerci; R C Koehler; A Y Shi; J Tsitlik; N Chandra; E Niedermeyer; M C Rogers; R J Traystman; M L Weisfeldt
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Decay in quality of closed-chest compressions over time.

Authors:  D Hightower; S H Thomas; C K Stone; K Dunn; J A March
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 5.721

10.  Manual versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An experimental study in pigs.

Authors:  Qiuming Liao; Trygve Sjöberg; Audrius Paskevicius; Björn Wohlfart; Stig Steen
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 2.298

View more
  4 in total

1.  Is increased positive end-expiratory pressure the culprit? Autoresuscitation in a 44-year-old man after prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a case report.

Authors:  Henning Hagmann; Katrin Oelmann; Robert Stangl; Guido Michels
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2016-12-20

2.  A Single-center Experience of Kidney Transplantation from Donation after Circulatory Death: Challenges and Scope in India.

Authors:  S Singh; S Kumar; S Dasgupta; D B Kenwar; M Rathi; A Sharma; H S Kohli; V Jha; K L Gupta; M Minz
Journal:  Indian J Nephrol       Date:  2017 May-Jun

3.  Corpuls CPR Generates Higher Mean Arterial Pressure Than LUCAS II in a Pig Model of Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  S Eichhorn; A Mendoza; A Prinzing; A Stroh; L Xinghai; M Polski; M Heller; H Lahm; E Wolf; R Lange; M Krane
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-12-17       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Unexpected collateral impact after out of hospital resuscitation using LUCAS system.

Authors:  Jasmin Hasmik Shahinian; Jonas Quitt; Mark Wiese; Friedrich Eckstein; Oliver Reuthebuch
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 1.637

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.