Literature DB >> 29345513

No Benefit in Neurologic Outcomes of Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest with Mechanical Compression Device.

Ryan Newberry, Ted Redman, Elliot Ross, Rachel Ely, Clayton Saidler, Allyson Arana, David Wampler, David Miramontes.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death and morbidity in the United States. Quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has proven to be a key factor in improving survival. The aim of our study was to investigate the outcomes of OHCA when mechanical CPR (LUCAS 2 Chest Compression System™) was utilized compared to conventional CPR. Although controlled trials have not demonstrated a survival benefit to the routine use of mechanical CPR devices, there continues to be an interest for their use in OHCA.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of OHCA comparing the outcomes of mechanical and manual chest compressions in a fire department based EMS system serving a population of 1.4 million residents. Mechanical CPR devices were geographically distributed on 11 of 33 paramedic ambulances. Data were collected over a 36-month period and outcomes were dichotomized based on utilization of mechanical CPR. The primary outcome measure was survival to hospital discharge with a cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 1 or 2.
RESULTS: This series had 3,469 OHCA reports, of which 2,999 had outcome data and met the inclusion criteria. Of these 2,236 received only manual CPR and 763 utilized a mechanical CPR device during the resuscitation. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was attained in 44% (334/763) of the mechanical CPR resuscitations and in 46% (1,020/2,236) of the standard manual CPR resuscitations (p = 0.32). Survival to hospital discharge was observed in 7% (52/763) of the mechanical CPR resuscitations and 9% (191/2,236) of the manual CPR group (p = 0.13). Discharge with a CPC score of 1 or 2 was observed in 4% (29/763) of the mechanical CPR resuscitation group and 6% (129/2,236) of the manual CPR group (p = 0.036).
CONCLUSIONS: In our study, use of the mechanical CPR device was associated with a poor neurologic outcome at hospital discharge. However, this difference was no longer evident after logistic regression adjusting for confounding variables. Resuscitation management following institution of mechanical CPR, specifically medication and airway management, may account for the poor outcome reported. Further investigation of resuscitation management when a mechanical CPR device is utilized is necessary to optimize survival benefit.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mechanical CPR device; neurologic outcome; out of hospital cardiac arrest; resuscitation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29345513     DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2017.1394405

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  7 in total

1.  Frequency and intensity of pulmonary bone marrow and fat embolism due to manual or automated chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  Benjamin Ondruschka; Christina Baier; Michael Bernhard; Claas Buschmann; Jan Dreßler; Julia Schlote; Johann Zwirner; Niels Hammer
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 2.007

2.  Chest compression-associated injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions versus automated chest compression devices (LUCAS II) - a forensic autopsy-based comparison.

Authors:  Benjamin Ondruschka; Christina Baier; Ronny Bayer; Niels Hammer; Jan Dreßler; Michael Bernhard
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 2.007

3.  Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mao Liu; Zhuang Shuai; Jiao Ai; Kai Tang; Hui Liu; Jiankang Zheng; Junqi Gou; Zhan Lv
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Metrics of mechanical chest compression device use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Michael Levy; Karl B Kern; Dana Yost; Fred W Chapman; Bjarne Madsen Hardig
Journal:  J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open       Date:  2020-07-04

5.  Effect of Prehospital Epinephrine Use on Survival from Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and on Emergency Medical Services.

Authors:  Song Yi Park; Daesung Lim; Seong Chun Kim; Ji Ho Ryu; Yong Hwan Kim; Byungho Choi; Sun Hyu Kim
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 6.  Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Cheng-Ying Chiang; Ket-Cheong Lim; Pei Chun Lai; Tou-Yuan Tsai; Yen Ta Huang; Ming-Jen Tsai
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 4.241

7.  Retrospective Comparison of Prehospital Sustained Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) Rates Within a Single Basic Life Support Jurisdiction Using Manual vs Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS-2) Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Authors:  Joshua Mastenbrook; Kathryn E Redinger; Duncan Vos; Cheryl Dickson
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-20
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.