Prehospital emergency care · 2005
The impact of a new CPR assist device on rate of return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Casner Michael, Andersen David, Isaacs S Marshal
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The San Francisco Fire Department deployed an automated, load-distributing-band chest compression device (AutoPulse, Revivant Corporation) to evaluate its function in a large urban emergency medical services (EMS) service. A retrospective chart review was undertaken to determine whether the AutoPulse had altered short-term patient outcome, specifically, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).
METHODS: AutoPulse cardiopulmonary resuscitation (A-CPR) was used by paramedic captains responding to adult cardiac arrests with an average +/-SD response time of 15 +/- 5 minutes. The primary endpoint was patient arrival to an emergency department with measurable spontaneous pulses. The manual CPR comparison group was case-matched for age, gender, initial presenting electrocardiogram rhythm, and the number of doses of Advanced Cardiac Life Support medications as a proxy for treatment time. Matching was performed by an investigator blinded to outcome and treatment group.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine AutoPulse uses were matched to 93 manual-CPR-only cases. A-CPR showed improvement in the primary outcome when compared with manual CPR with any presenting rhythm (A-CPR 39%, manual 29%, p = 0.003). When patients were classified by first presenting rhythm, shockable rhythms showed no difference in outcome (A-CPR 44%, manual 50%, p = 0.340). Outcome was improved with A-CPR in initial presenting asystole and approached significance with pulseless electrical activity (PEA)(asystole: A-CPR 37%, manual 22%, p = 0.008; PEA: A-CPR 38%, manual 23%, p = 0.079).
CONCLUSION: The AutoPulse may improve the overall likelihood of sustained ROSC and may particularly benefit patients with nonshockable rhythms. A prospective randomized trial comparing the AutoPulse with manual CPR in the setting of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is under way.
METHODS: AutoPulse cardiopulmonary resuscitation (A-CPR) was used by paramedic captains responding to adult cardiac arrests with an average +/-SD response time of 15 +/- 5 minutes. The primary endpoint was patient arrival to an emergency department with measurable spontaneous pulses. The manual CPR comparison group was case-matched for age, gender, initial presenting electrocardiogram rhythm, and the number of doses of Advanced Cardiac Life Support medications as a proxy for treatment time. Matching was performed by an investigator blinded to outcome and treatment group.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine AutoPulse uses were matched to 93 manual-CPR-only cases. A-CPR showed improvement in the primary outcome when compared with manual CPR with any presenting rhythm (A-CPR 39%, manual 29%, p = 0.003). When patients were classified by first presenting rhythm, shockable rhythms showed no difference in outcome (A-CPR 44%, manual 50%, p = 0.340). Outcome was improved with A-CPR in initial presenting asystole and approached significance with pulseless electrical activity (PEA)(asystole: A-CPR 37%, manual 22%, p = 0.008; PEA: A-CPR 38%, manual 23%, p = 0.079).
CONCLUSION: The AutoPulse may improve the overall likelihood of sustained ROSC and may particularly benefit patients with nonshockable rhythms. A prospective randomized trial comparing the AutoPulse with manual CPR in the setting of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is under way.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAdvanced Cardiac Life SupportAgedAged, 80 and overCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCase-Control StudiesEmergency Medical ServicesEquipment SafetyFemaleHeart ArrestHeart MassageHumansMaleMiddle AgedProbabilityRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSan FranciscoSensitivity and SpecificitySurvival RateTreatment Outcome