Yahya Kemal Günaydın1, Bora Çekmen2, Nazire Belgin Akıllı3, Ramazan Köylü4, Ekrem Taha Sert5, Başar Cander6. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey. Electronic address: gsykg@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Okmeydanı Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: ebrosrian@gmail.com. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey. Electronic address: drbelginakilli@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey. Electronic address: drkoylu@yahoo.com. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey. Electronic address: tahaekrem@hotmail.com. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey. Electronic address: basarcander@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite all of the studies conducted on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the mortality rate of cardiac arrest patients is still high. This has led to a search for alternative methods. One of these methods is active compression-decompression CPR (ACD-CPR) performed with the CardioPump. OBJECTIVE: The differences in the restoration of spontaneous circulation; the 1-, 7-, and 30-day survival rates; and hospital discharge rates between conventional CPR and ACD-CPR performed with CardioPump were investigated. In addition, the differences between the 2 methods with respect to complications were also investigated. METHODS: Our study was a prospective, randomized medical device study with a case-control group. Cardiac arrest cases brought to our emergency medicine clinic by the 112 emergency ambulances from out of hospital and patients who had developed cardiac arrest inhospital clinics between April 2015 and September 2015 were included in our study. For randomization, standard CPR was performed on odd days of each month, and CPR using CardioPump was performed on the even days of each month. RESULTS:A total of 181 patients were included in our study. The number of patients who received conventional CPR was determined as 86 (47.5%), and the number of patients who received CPR using the CardioPump was determined as 95 (52.5%). We did not identify any difference between conventional CPR and CardioPump ACD-CPR with respect to restoration of spontaneous circulation, discharge rates, and the 1-, 7-, and 30-day survival rates. (P=.384, P=.601, P=.997, P=.483, and P=.803, respectively) The complication rate was higher in the patient group that received conventional CPR (P<.001). CONCLUSION: As a result of our study, we did not obtain any evidence supporting the replacement of conventional CPR with ACD-CPR performed using CardioPump.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite all of the studies conducted on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the mortality rate of cardiac arrestpatients is still high. This has led to a search for alternative methods. One of these methods is active compression-decompression CPR (ACD-CPR) performed with the CardioPump. OBJECTIVE: The differences in the restoration of spontaneous circulation; the 1-, 7-, and 30-day survival rates; and hospital discharge rates between conventional CPR and ACD-CPR performed with CardioPump were investigated. In addition, the differences between the 2 methods with respect to complications were also investigated. METHODS: Our study was a prospective, randomized medical device study with a case-control group. Cardiac arrest cases brought to our emergency medicine clinic by the 112 emergency ambulances from out of hospital and patients who had developed cardiac arrest inhospital clinics between April 2015 and September 2015 were included in our study. For randomization, standard CPR was performed on odd days of each month, and CPR using CardioPump was performed on the even days of each month. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were included in our study. The number of patients who received conventional CPR was determined as 86 (47.5%), and the number of patients who received CPR using the CardioPump was determined as 95 (52.5%). We did not identify any difference between conventional CPR and CardioPump ACD-CPR with respect to restoration of spontaneous circulation, discharge rates, and the 1-, 7-, and 30-day survival rates. (P=.384, P=.601, P=.997, P=.483, and P=.803, respectively) The complication rate was higher in the patient group that received conventional CPR (P<.001). CONCLUSION: As a result of our study, we did not obtain any evidence supporting the replacement of conventional CPR with ACD-CPR performed using CardioPump.