机械胸腔挤压装置的并发症频率:利用回顾性数据进行的单中心盲法研究

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Resuscitation plus Pub Date : 2024-09-24 DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100786
Takumi Tsuchida , Takashi Kamiishi , Hiroaki Usubuchi , Akiko Semba , Masaki Takahashi , Asumi Mizugaki , Mariko Hayamizu , Mineji Hayakawa , Takeshi Wada
{"title":"机械胸腔挤压装置的并发症频率:利用回顾性数据进行的单中心盲法研究","authors":"Takumi Tsuchida ,&nbsp;Takashi Kamiishi ,&nbsp;Hiroaki Usubuchi ,&nbsp;Akiko Semba ,&nbsp;Masaki Takahashi ,&nbsp;Asumi Mizugaki ,&nbsp;Mariko Hayamizu ,&nbsp;Mineji Hayakawa ,&nbsp;Takeshi Wada","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100786","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>Use of mechanical chest compression devices for patients with cardiac arrest is increasing. As cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines and LUCAS are updated, the evidence requires updating.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-center, retrospective study observed adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving CPR from emergency services. Patients were assigned to LUCAS or manual CPR groups, matched by propensity score, and evaluated through computed tomography images by a radiologist blinded to their data. The primary outcome was complications from chest compressions, and logistic regression was used to analyze their risk factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, 261 patients were selected and divided into manual and LUCAS groups (n = 69 each). The manual CPR group exhibited higher witnessed cardiac arrest percentages (p = 0.023) and shorter times from scene to emergency department (p = 0.001) and total CPR duration (p = 0.002), versus the LUCAS group. Complication rates showed no significant intergroup differences in overall CPR complications (p = 0.462); however, the LUCAS group reported more hemothorax incidents (p = 0.028), versus the manual group. Logistic regression indicated that female sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.743, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.333–10.506), older age (OR 1.089, 95 % CI 1.048–1.132), and longer CPR durations (OR 1.045, 95 % CI 1.006–1.085) significantly correlated with compression complications, whereas LUCAS use did not (OR 0.713, 95 % CI 0.304–1.673).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>No association was observed between LUCAS use and the overall incidence of chest compression complications in adults with OHCA. LUCAS is associated with more hemothorax cases and longer transport time, versus manual CPR. Evaluating LUCAS’s benefits necessitates multiple perspectives and further research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100786"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002376/pdfft?md5=a8b09004911812fab518e99f463098a1&pid=1-s2.0-S2666520424002376-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complication frequency of mechanical chest compression devices: A single-center, blinded study using retrospective data\",\"authors\":\"Takumi Tsuchida ,&nbsp;Takashi Kamiishi ,&nbsp;Hiroaki Usubuchi ,&nbsp;Akiko Semba ,&nbsp;Masaki Takahashi ,&nbsp;Asumi Mizugaki ,&nbsp;Mariko Hayamizu ,&nbsp;Mineji Hayakawa ,&nbsp;Takeshi Wada\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100786\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><div>Use of mechanical chest compression devices for patients with cardiac arrest is increasing. As cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines and LUCAS are updated, the evidence requires updating.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This single-center, retrospective study observed adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving CPR from emergency services. Patients were assigned to LUCAS or manual CPR groups, matched by propensity score, and evaluated through computed tomography images by a radiologist blinded to their data. The primary outcome was complications from chest compressions, and logistic regression was used to analyze their risk factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, 261 patients were selected and divided into manual and LUCAS groups (n = 69 each). The manual CPR group exhibited higher witnessed cardiac arrest percentages (p = 0.023) and shorter times from scene to emergency department (p = 0.001) and total CPR duration (p = 0.002), versus the LUCAS group. Complication rates showed no significant intergroup differences in overall CPR complications (p = 0.462); however, the LUCAS group reported more hemothorax incidents (p = 0.028), versus the manual group. Logistic regression indicated that female sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.743, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.333–10.506), older age (OR 1.089, 95 % CI 1.048–1.132), and longer CPR durations (OR 1.045, 95 % CI 1.006–1.085) significantly correlated with compression complications, whereas LUCAS use did not (OR 0.713, 95 % CI 0.304–1.673).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>No association was observed between LUCAS use and the overall incidence of chest compression complications in adults with OHCA. LUCAS is associated with more hemothorax cases and longer transport time, versus manual CPR. Evaluating LUCAS’s benefits necessitates multiple perspectives and further research.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100786\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002376/pdfft?md5=a8b09004911812fab518e99f463098a1&pid=1-s2.0-S2666520424002376-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424002376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的对心脏骤停患者使用机械胸外按压装置的情况越来越多。随着心肺复苏(CPR)指南和 LUCAS 的更新,证据也需要更新。方法这项单中心回顾性研究观察了在院外接受急救中心心肺复苏的心脏骤停成人患者。患者被分配到 LUCAS 或人工心肺复苏组,根据倾向评分进行配对,并由对患者数据保密的放射科医生通过计算机断层扫描图像进行评估。主要结果是胸外按压引起的并发症,并采用逻辑回归分析其风险因素。结果共选取了 261 名患者,分为手动组和 LUCAS 组(各 69 人)。与 LUCAS 组相比,手动心肺复苏组的目击心脏骤停比例更高(p = 0.023),从现场到急诊科的时间更短(p = 0.001),心肺复苏总持续时间更短(p = 0.002)。并发症发生率显示,在总体心肺复苏并发症方面,组间无明显差异(p = 0.462);但 LUCAS 组报告的血气胸发生率(p = 0.028)高于手动组。逻辑回归表明,女性(几率比 [OR] 3.743,95% 置信区间 [CI] 1.333-10.506)、年龄较大(OR 1.089,95% CI 1.048-1.132)和心肺复苏持续时间较长(OR 1.045,95% CI 1.006-1.085)与按压并发症显著相关。结论 在 OHCA 成人患者中,未观察到 LUCAS 的使用与胸外按压并发症的总体发生率之间存在关联。与手动心肺复苏相比,LUCAS 与更多的血气胸病例和更长的转运时间有关。评估 LUCAS 的益处需要从多个角度进行深入研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Complication frequency of mechanical chest compression devices: A single-center, blinded study using retrospective data

Aim

Use of mechanical chest compression devices for patients with cardiac arrest is increasing. As cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines and LUCAS are updated, the evidence requires updating.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective study observed adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving CPR from emergency services. Patients were assigned to LUCAS or manual CPR groups, matched by propensity score, and evaluated through computed tomography images by a radiologist blinded to their data. The primary outcome was complications from chest compressions, and logistic regression was used to analyze their risk factors.

Results

Overall, 261 patients were selected and divided into manual and LUCAS groups (n = 69 each). The manual CPR group exhibited higher witnessed cardiac arrest percentages (p = 0.023) and shorter times from scene to emergency department (p = 0.001) and total CPR duration (p = 0.002), versus the LUCAS group. Complication rates showed no significant intergroup differences in overall CPR complications (p = 0.462); however, the LUCAS group reported more hemothorax incidents (p = 0.028), versus the manual group. Logistic regression indicated that female sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.743, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.333–10.506), older age (OR 1.089, 95 % CI 1.048–1.132), and longer CPR durations (OR 1.045, 95 % CI 1.006–1.085) significantly correlated with compression complications, whereas LUCAS use did not (OR 0.713, 95 % CI 0.304–1.673).

Conclusion

No association was observed between LUCAS use and the overall incidence of chest compression complications in adults with OHCA. LUCAS is associated with more hemothorax cases and longer transport time, versus manual CPR. Evaluating LUCAS’s benefits necessitates multiple perspectives and further research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
期刊最新文献
Prehospital ventilation strategies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PIVOT trial) Effect of introduction of a rapid response system and increasing Medical Emergency Team (MET) activity on mortality over a 20-year period in a paediatric specialist hospital Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in obese patients: A scoping review Effect of chest compressions in addition to extracorporeal life support on carotid flow in an experimental model of refractory cardiac arrest in pigs Ventilation practices and preparedness of healthcare providers in term newborn resuscitation: A comprehensive survey study in Austrian hospitals
×
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