KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Turkish journal of emergency medicine (Online) / 2021 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 2

Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?

İshak ŞAN
Burak BEKGÖZ
Eren USUL
Mehmet ERGİN
Sayfa
69–74
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-04
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: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health‑care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:CONCLUSION: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health‑care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality. METHODS: This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands‑off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model’s recording system. RESULTS: The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%–75% = 117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 102.1–102.7) (P < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%–75% = 32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 51.8–55.0) (P < 0.001). The median hands‑off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25–75 = 5.0%–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 8.2%–12.5%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health‑care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ŞAN, İ., BEKGÖZ, B., USUL, E., ERGİN, M. (2022). Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?. Turkish journal of emergency medicine (Online), Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 2, 69–74. https://ajindex.com/articles/605218

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (9)

  1. Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:947‑55
  2. Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, Halperin HR, Hess EP, Moitra VK, et al. Part 7: Adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015;132:S444‑64
  3. Krarup NH, Terkelsen CJ, Johnsen SP, Clemmensen P, Olivecrona GK, Hansen TM, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest is hampered by interruptions in chest compressions‑‑a nationwide prospective feasibility study. Resuscitation 2011;82:263‑9
  4. Hayashida K, Tagami T, Fukuda T, Suzuki M, Yonemoto N, Kondo Y, et al. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation and hospital survival among adult patients with nontraumatic out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest attending the emergency department: A prospective, multicenter, observational study in Japan (SOS‑KANTO [survey of survivors after out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest in Kanto Area] 2012 study). J Am Heart Assoc 2017;31;6
  5. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Östlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: The LINC randomized trial. JAMA 2014;311:53‑61
  6. Wik L, Olsen JA, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M Jr, Brouwer MA, 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;85:741‑8
  7. Kurz MC, Dante SA, Puckett BJ. Estimating the impact of off‑balancing forces upon cardiopulmonary resuscitation during ambulance transport. Resuscitation 2012;83:1085‑9
  8. Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, Pedross F, Strapazzon G, Brugger H, et al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue‑a prospective, randomized, cross‑over manikin study. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:384‑9
  9. Tranberg T, Lassen JF, Kaltoft AK, Hansen TM, Stengaard C, Knudsen L, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest before and after introduction of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS‑2; a prospective, observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2015;23:37. 10.