Literature DB >> 9596436

Effectiveness of mechanical versus manual chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: a pilot study.

E T Dickinson1, V P Verdile, R M Schneider, R F Salluzzo.   

Abstract

A prospective, randomized effectiveness trial was undertaken to compare mechanical versus manual chest compressions as measured by end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) resuscitation from a municipal third-service, emergency medical services (EMS) agency. The EMS agency responds to approximately 6,700 emergencies annually, 79 of which were cardiac arrests in 1994, the study year. Following endotracheal intubation, all cardiac arrest patients were placed on 100% oxygen via the ventilator circuit of the mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device. Patients were randomized to receive mechanical CPR (TCPR) or human/manual CPR (HCPR) based on an odd/even day basis, with TCPR being performed on odd days. ETCO2 readings were obtained 5 minutes after the initiation of either TCPR or HCPR and again at the initiation of patient transport to the hospital. All patients received standard ACLS pharmacotherapy during the monitoring interval with the exception of sodium bicarbonate. CPR was continued until the patient was delivered to the hospital emergency department. Age, call response interval, initial electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm, scene time, ETCO2 measurements, and arrest outcome were identified for all patients. Twenty patients were entered into the study, with 10 in each treatment group. Three patients in the TCPR group were excluded. Measurements in the HCPR group revealed a decreasing ETCO2 during the resuscitation in 8 of 10 patients (80%) and an increasing ETCO2 in the remaining 2 patients. No decrease in ETCO2 was noted in the TCPR group, with 4 of 7 patients (57%) actually showing an increased reading and 3 of 7 patients (43%) showing a constant ETCO2 reading. The differences in the ETCO2 measurements between TCPR and HCPR groups were statistically significant. Both groups were similar with regards to call response intervals, patient ages, scene times, and initial ECG rhythms. One patient in the TCPR group was admitted to the hospital but later died, leaving no survivors in the study. TCPR appears to be superior to standard HCPR as measured by ETCO2 in maintaining cardiac output during ACLS resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9596436     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-6757(98)90105-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  10 in total

Review 1.  "Putting it all together" to improve resuscitation quality.

Authors:  Robert M Sutton; Vinay Nadkarni; Benjamin S Abella
Journal:  Emerg Med Clin North Am       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 2.264

2.  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 3.  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 4. 

Authors:  J P Nolan; C D Deakin; J Soar; B W Böttiger; G Smith; M Baubin; B Dirks; V Wenzel
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 0.826

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  The Development of Innovative Handheld Devices to Augment Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Therapy and External Cardioversion and Defibrillation.

Authors:  Melanie L Gershman; Brandon S Needelman; Sam N Schwarzwald; Todd J Cohen
Journal:  J Innov Card Rhythm Manag       Date:  2017-12-15

7.  The Use of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation May Be Associated With Improved Outcomes Over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Inhospital Cardiac Arrests.

Authors:  Conor P Crowley; Emily S Wan; Justin D Salciccioli; Edy Kim
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2020-11-16

Review 8.  [Adult advanced life support].

Authors:  Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 0.826

9.  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

Review 10.  Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui Li; Dongping Wang; Yi Yu; Xiang Zhao; Xiaoli Jing
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.953

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.