Dergiler / Acta Medica / 2021 / Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 4

Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compression: A Retrospective- Cohort in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Sayfa
325–331
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: It can be seen that the effect of mechanical chest compression on survival is controversial; studies on this issue should continue and, furthermore, studies on the contribution of mechanical chest compression on labor loss should be conducted.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: In cardiac arrest cases, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and effective chest compression are vital issues in improving survival with good neurological outcomes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this study, we investigated the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on 30- day survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: It can be seen that the effect of mechanical chest compression on survival is controversial; studies on this issue should continue and, furthermore, studies on the contribution of mechanical chest compression on labor loss should be conducted.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: In cardiac arrest cases, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and effective chest compression are vital issues in improving survival with good neurological outcomes. In this study, we investigated the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on 30- day survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case-control study was performed on patients who were over 18 years of age and admitted to the emergency department for cardiac arrest between January 1, 2016 and January 15, 2018. Manual chest compression was performed to the patients before January 15, 2017, and mechanical chest compression was performed after this date. Return of spontaneous circulation, hospital discharge, and 30-day survival rates were compared between the groups of patients in terms of chest compression type. In this study, the LUCAS-2 model piston-based mechanical chest compression device was used for mechanical chest compressions. Results: The rate of return of spontaneous circulation was significantly lower in the mechanical chest compression group (11.1% vs 33.1%; p < 0.001). The 30-day survival rate was higher in the manual chest compression group (6.8% vs 3.7%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.542). Furthermore, 30-day survival was 0% in the trauma group and 0.6% in the patient group who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for over 20 minutes. Conclusion: It can be seen that the effect of mechanical chest compression on survival is controversial; studies on this issue should continue and, furthermore, studies on the contribution of mechanical chest compression on labor loss should be conducted.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Tanrıverdi, F., Günaydın, G. P., Şener, A. (2022). Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compression: A Retrospective- Cohort in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. Acta Medica, Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 4, 325–331. https://ajindex.com/articles/427545

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Brodal Syversen K, Souvannasacd E, Renger R. Validating the LUCAS® mechanical chest compression fit specifications. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(2):371-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.06.069
  2. Sarıaydın T, Çorbacıoğlu ŞK, Çevik Y, et al. Effect of initial lactate level on short-term survival in patients with out-ofhospital cardiac arrest. Turk J Emerg Med. 2017;17(4):123- 7. doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2017.05.003. eCollection 2017 Dec
  3. Bonnes JL, Brouwer MA, Navarese EP, et al. Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus CPR Including a Mechanical Chest Compression Device in Out-of- Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comprehensive Meta- Analysis from Randomized and Observational Studies. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(3):349-60. doi: 10.1016/j. annemergmed.2015.09.023
  4. Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, et al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, crossover manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(2):384-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.018
  5. Poole K, Couper K, Smyth MA, et al. Mechanical CPR: Who? When? How? Crit Care. 2018;22(1):140. doi: 10.1186/ s13054-018-2059-0
  6. Gyory RA, Buchle SE, Rodgers D, et al. The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(3):437-45. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.1.32575
  7. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-ofhospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(1):53-61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282538
  8. Wik L, Olsen JA, Persse D, et al. Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014;85(6):741-8. doi: 10.1016/j. resuscitation.2014.03.005
  9. Brooks SC, Bigham BL, Moririson LJ. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub2
  10. Brooks SC, Hassan N, Bighm BL, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2:CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub3
  11. Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, et al. A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with LUCAS device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011; 82:702-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.032
  12. Gates S, Quin