Article

Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - A pilot study

University of Gothenburg, Goeteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
Resuscitation (Impact Factor: 3.96). 10/2006; 71(1):47-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.02.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after the introduction of mechanical chest compression (MCC) compared with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) in two emergency medical service (EMS) systems.
The inclusion criterion was witnessed OHCA. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, the following judged etiologies behind OHCA: trauma, pregnancy, hypothermia, intoxication, hanging and drowning or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to the arrival of the advanced life support (ALS) unit. Two MCC devices were allocated during six-month periods between four ALS units for a period of two years (cluster randomisation).
In all, 328 patients fulfilled the criteria for participation and 159 were allocated to the MCC tier (the device was used in 66% of cases) and 169 to the SCPR tier. In the MCC tier, 51% had ROSC (primary end-point) versus 51% in the SCPR tier. The corresponding values for hospital admission alive (secondary end-point) were 38% and 37% (NS). In the subset of patients in whom the device was used, the percentage who had ROSC was 49% versus 50% in a control group matched for age, initial rhythm, aetiology, bystander-/crew-witnessed status and delay to CPR. The percentage of patients discharged alive from hospital after OHCA was 8% versus 10% (NS) for all patients and 2% versus 4%, respectively (NS) for the patients in the subset (where the device was used and the matched control population).
In this pilot study, the results did not support the hypothesis that the introduction of mechanical chest compression in OHCA improves outcome. However, there is room for further improvement in the use of the device. The hypothesis that this will improve outcome needs to be tested in further prospective trials.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Åsa Axelsson, Aug 20, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
181 Views
  • Source
    • "I 34 % av fallen användes inte LUCAS på grund av varierande orsaker, bland annat för liten och för stor patient, andningsproblem, bröstsmärta, kardiovaskulär sjukdom, angina pectoris, diabetes, medvetslöshet, hjärtstopp nära sjukhus, tekniska problem, tidig återkomst av cirkulation med mera. (Axelsson, C., et al. 2006). När patienten är för liten eller för stor är det kontraindicerat att använda LUCAS eftersom bröstkorgshöjden ska vara 17-27 centimeter för att LUCAS ska kunna appliceras på ett riktigt sätt (Medtronic, 2006). "
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dismal survival statistics associated with sudden cardiac arrest have led to the development of new strategies and mechanical devices aimed at improving the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The most recent American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care were published in 2005. Major changes included revisions to current practices related to airway and ventilation, circulation, and defibrillation management. Greater emphasis is placed on providing simple, high-quality, effective CPR. New techniques and mechanical devices have been developed to augment CPR, hopefully improving survival rates and long-term outcomes. These include active compression-decompression CPR, Lund University Cardiac Assist System, LifeBelt, AutoPulse, and the impedance threshold device. This article focuses on current strategies aimed at improving survival rates for patients with sudden cardiac arrest. New techniques and mechanical devices developed to augment cardiopulmonary resuscitation will be discussed. These strategies will most likely shape future resuscitation practices.
    AACN Advanced Critical Care 20(4):373-83. DOI:10.1097/NCI.0b013e3181baf5e4
  • Source
    Notfall 11/2010; 13(7):559-620. DOI:10.1007/s10049-010-1370-3 · 0.32 Impact Factor
Show more