Expert review of medical devices · 2021
Outcomes after mechanical versus manual chest compressions in eCPR patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Gaisendrees Christopher, Gerfer Stephen, Ivanov Borko, Sabashnikov Anton, Merkle Julia, Luehr Maximilian, Schlachtenberger Georg, Walter Sebastian G, Eghbalzadeh Kaveh, Kuhn Elmar, Djordjevic Ilija, Wahlers Thorsten
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is an established treatment option for cardiac arrest. Mechanical reanimation devices are increasingly used but have been associated with complications. This study evaluates typical injury patterns and differences after mechanical versus manual chest compressions among patients undergoing eCPR.
METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 108 eCPR patients were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were traumatic, hemorrhagic, or inner organ-related complications, defined as pneumothorax, pulmonary bleeding, major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, gastrointestinal ischemia, cardiac tamponade, aortic dissection, sternal or rib fracture.
RESULTS: 70 patients were treated with mechanical CPR (mCPR) and 38 with conventional CPR (cCPR). There were more CPR-related injuries in the mCPR group (55% vs. 83%, p = 0.01), CPR duration was longer (cCPR 40 ± 28 min vs. mCPR 69 ± 25 min, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical CPR devices are associated with a higher incidence of traumatic and hemorrhagic injuries in patients undergoing eCPR.
METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 108 eCPR patients were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoints were traumatic, hemorrhagic, or inner organ-related complications, defined as pneumothorax, pulmonary bleeding, major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, gastrointestinal ischemia, cardiac tamponade, aortic dissection, sternal or rib fracture.
RESULTS: 70 patients were treated with mechanical CPR (mCPR) and 38 with conventional CPR (cCPR). There were more CPR-related injuries in the mCPR group (55% vs. 83%, p = 0.01), CPR duration was longer (cCPR 40 ± 28 min vs. mCPR 69 ± 25 min, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups.
CONCLUSION: Mechanical CPR devices are associated with a higher incidence of traumatic and hemorrhagic injuries in patients undergoing eCPR.