Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions.

Julia Fox, René Fiechter, Peter Gerstl, Alfons Url, Heinz Wagner, Thomas F Lüscher, Urs Eriksson, Christophe A Wyss
{"title":"Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions.","authors":"Julia Fox,&nbsp;René Fiechter,&nbsp;Peter Gerstl,&nbsp;Alfons Url,&nbsp;Heinz Wagner,&nbsp;Thomas F Lüscher,&nbsp;Urs Eriksson,&nbsp;Christophe A Wyss","doi":"10.3109/17482941.2012.735675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Novel mechanical chest compression devices offer the possibility to transport cardiac arrest patients with ongoing CPR and might shorten significantly the time delay to post-resuscitation care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We simulated an eight-minute cardiac resuscitation situation during ambulance transport using CPR training manikins. We compared teams consisting of two experienced resuscitators with the performance of a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CPR-performance by two experienced resuscitators demonstrated ambivalent results. Whereas mean compression rate was within the recommended range (103/min, 95% CI: 93-113/min), mean compression depth was closely below the actually recommended compression depth of >5 cm (49.7 mm, 95% CI: 46.1-53.3mm). Nevertheless, only a mean of two thirds (67%) of all compressions were classified as manually correct (defined as sternal compression depth >5 cm). In contrast, the LUCAS device showed a constant and reliable CPR performance (99.96% correctly applied chest compressions correctly applied within the device programmed parameters, P = 0.0162) with almost no variance between the different sequences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LUCAS CPR device represents a reliable alternative to manual CPR in a moving ambulance vehicle during emergency evacuation. Furthermore, it needs less human resources and is safer for the EMS personnel.</p>","PeriodicalId":87385,"journal":{"name":"Acute cardiac care","volume":"15 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/17482941.2012.735675","citationCount":"64","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute cardiac care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/17482941.2012.735675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 64

Abstract

Background: Novel mechanical chest compression devices offer the possibility to transport cardiac arrest patients with ongoing CPR and might shorten significantly the time delay to post-resuscitation care.

Methods: We simulated an eight-minute cardiac resuscitation situation during ambulance transport using CPR training manikins. We compared teams consisting of two experienced resuscitators with the performance of a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS).

Results: CPR-performance by two experienced resuscitators demonstrated ambivalent results. Whereas mean compression rate was within the recommended range (103/min, 95% CI: 93-113/min), mean compression depth was closely below the actually recommended compression depth of >5 cm (49.7 mm, 95% CI: 46.1-53.3mm). Nevertheless, only a mean of two thirds (67%) of all compressions were classified as manually correct (defined as sternal compression depth >5 cm). In contrast, the LUCAS device showed a constant and reliable CPR performance (99.96% correctly applied chest compressions correctly applied within the device programmed parameters, P = 0.0162) with almost no variance between the different sequences.

Conclusion: The LUCAS CPR device represents a reliable alternative to manual CPR in a moving ambulance vehicle during emergency evacuation. Furthermore, it needs less human resources and is safer for the EMS personnel.

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
地面救护车运输条件下的机械与手动胸部按压心肺复苏术。
背景:新型机械胸部按压装置为正在进行心肺复苏术的心脏骤停患者提供了转运的可能性,并可能显著缩短复苏后护理的时间延迟。方法:我们使用心肺复苏术训练模型模拟救护车运输过程中8分钟的心脏复苏情况。我们比较了由两名经验丰富的复苏员组成的团队与机械胸外按压装置(LUCAS)的表现。结果:两名经验丰富的复苏员的心肺复苏表现出矛盾的结果。虽然平均压缩率在推荐范围内(103/min, 95% CI: 93-113/min),但平均压缩深度远低于实际推荐的>5 cm的压缩深度(49.7 mm, 95% CI: 46.1-53.3mm)。然而,只有平均三分之二(67%)的按压被归类为手动矫正(定义为胸骨按压深度> 5cm)。相比之下,LUCAS装置显示出稳定可靠的心肺复苏术表现(99.96%正确应用胸腔按压,正确应用设备编程参数,P = 0.0162),不同序列之间几乎没有差异。结论:LUCAS心肺复苏术装置是一种可靠的替代人工心肺复苏术在移动的救护车车辆在紧急疏散。此外,它需要较少的人力资源,对EMS人员来说更安全。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A multi-hospital analysis of predictors of oral anticoagulation prescriptions for patients with actionable atrial fibrillation who attend the emergency department. Mayo registry for telemetry efficacy in arrest study: An evaluation of the feasibility of the do not intubate code status. Acute pneumopericardium: when echocardiography is not enough. Severe burns in a patient after out-of-hospital CPR. Pregnant women with heart disease: Placental characteristics and their association with fetal adverse events.
×
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:481959085
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