Cardiothoracic injuries and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation – A forensic autopsy convenience control study on 436 cases

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Forensic science international Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-23 DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112452
Johanne Ejby Bidstrup, Lars Löchte, Johannes Rødbro Busch, Jytte Banner
{"title":"Cardiothoracic injuries and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation – A forensic autopsy convenience control study on 436 cases","authors":"Johanne Ejby Bidstrup,&nbsp;Lars Löchte,&nbsp;Johannes Rødbro Busch,&nbsp;Jytte Banner","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study documents the types and frequencies of injuries related to chest compressions during resuscitation attempts in a cohort of 436 non-traumatic, forensic autopsy cases from Eastern Denmark. We hypothesized that there would be a difference in types and frequencies of injuries seen after mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (mCPR) compared to manual basic life support (BLS). We included all non-traumatic deaths referred for a forensic autopsy in eastern Denmark in the period 2015–2017, for a total of 436 cases (females, <em>n</em> = 146; males, <em>n</em> = 290), of which 75 cases had mCPR performed. Data on injuries were obtained from forensic autopsy reports. The mCPR group was characterized by a statistically significantly higher incidence of myocardial rupture (4 % vs. 0 %, p &lt; 0.0001). We found no other statistically significant differences in the incidence of visceral trauma (e.g. haemothorax, pericardial haemorrhage, pulmonary contusions, liver or spleen injuries) between the two groups. In addition, characteristic injuries recorded in both groups included a high frequency of multiple rib fractures in the upper and middle parts of the rib cage, primarily located anteriorly, as well as sternum fractures, but these findings occurred almost twice as much in the mCPR group (77.3 % vs. 46.8 %, p &lt; 0.0001).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"370 ","pages":"Article 112452"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073825000908","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study documents the types and frequencies of injuries related to chest compressions during resuscitation attempts in a cohort of 436 non-traumatic, forensic autopsy cases from Eastern Denmark. We hypothesized that there would be a difference in types and frequencies of injuries seen after mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (mCPR) compared to manual basic life support (BLS). We included all non-traumatic deaths referred for a forensic autopsy in eastern Denmark in the period 2015–2017, for a total of 436 cases (females, n = 146; males, n = 290), of which 75 cases had mCPR performed. Data on injuries were obtained from forensic autopsy reports. The mCPR group was characterized by a statistically significantly higher incidence of myocardial rupture (4 % vs. 0 %, p < 0.0001). We found no other statistically significant differences in the incidence of visceral trauma (e.g. haemothorax, pericardial haemorrhage, pulmonary contusions, liver or spleen injuries) between the two groups. In addition, characteristic injuries recorded in both groups included a high frequency of multiple rib fractures in the upper and middle parts of the rib cage, primarily located anteriorly, as well as sternum fractures, but these findings occurred almost twice as much in the mCPR group (77.3 % vs. 46.8 %, p < 0.0001).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心胸损伤与机械心肺复苏术 - 436 例法医尸检方便对照研究
本研究记录了来自丹麦东部的436例非创伤性法医尸检病例在复苏过程中与胸部按压相关的损伤类型和频率。我们假设机械心肺复苏(mCPR)与手动基本生命支持(BLS)相比,在损伤类型和频率上存在差异。我们纳入了2015-2017年期间丹麦东部提交法医尸检的所有非创伤性死亡病例,共436例(女性,n = 146;男性,n = 290),其中75例行mCPR。受伤数据来自法医尸检报告。mCPR组心肌破裂发生率显著高于对照组(4 % vs. 0 %,p <; 0.0001)。我们发现两组在内脏创伤(如血胸、心包出血、肺挫伤、肝或脾损伤)发生率方面没有其他统计学上的显著差异。此外,两组记录的特征性损伤包括胸腔上部和中部多发肋骨骨折的频率较高,主要位于前部,以及胸骨骨折,但这些发现在mCPR组发生的频率几乎是mCPR组的两倍(77.3% %对46.8% %,p <; 0.0001)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
期刊最新文献
Lessons from the development of a canine training aid mimic for the detection of fentanyl: Canines versus instruments Is my smartwatch a valid witness? A systematic review and meta-analysis The fatal triad in pcr-negative pediatric autopsies: A focus on aspiration, occult sepsis, and underlying immune dysfunction A forensic investigation and simulation-based analysis of a chemical plant explosion accident Utilizing the Bayesian network algorithm for noninvasive prenatal paternity testing (NIPPT) and efficacy evaluation of NIPPT system
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1