Suppr超能文献

用于心肺复苏的主动胸外按压-减压

Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

作者信息

Lafuente-Lafuente C, Melero-Bascones M

机构信息

Area de Urgencias / Unidad de Documentación, Clínica Moncloa, Avda. Valladolid, 83, Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(3):CD002751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002751.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACDR CPR) uses a hand-held suction device, applied mid sternum, to compress the chest then actively decompress the chest after each compression. Randomised controlled trials on use of active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation have results which are discordant.

OBJECTIVES

To determine clinical effects and safety of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STR).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (May 2002), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles and contacted enterprises manufacturing the active decompression devices.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with a cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a trained medical or paramedical team.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The authors of the primary studies were contacted for more information when needed. Studies were cumulated, if appropriate, and pooled relative risk (RR) estimated. Subgroup analysis according to setting (out of hospital or in hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only) were predefined.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were included: 10 were in out-of-hospital settings, one set in-hospital only and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in 4 trials. The two in-hospital studies were very different in quality (A and C) and size (773 and 53 patients). Both found no differences between ACDR CPR and STR in any outcome. Trials conducted in out-of-hospital settings cumulated 4162 patients. There were no differences between ACDR CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94 - 1.03]) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98 - 1.01]). The pooled RR of neurological impairment, any severity, was 1.71 [95% CI 0.90 - 3.25], with a non-significant trend to more frequent severe neurological damage in survivors of ACDR CPR (RR 3.11 [95% CI 0.98 - 9.83]). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited and there were few patients with neurological damage. There was no difference between ACDR CPR and STR with regard complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax or hemothorax (RR 1.09 [95% CI 0.86 - 1.38]). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACDR CPR.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Active chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.

摘要

背景

主动按压-减压心肺复苏术(ACDR CPR)使用手持式吸引装置,置于胸骨中部,按压胸部,然后在每次按压后主动放松胸部。关于主动按压-减压心肺复苏术使用的随机对照试验结果并不一致。

目的

确定与标准徒手心肺复苏术(STR)相比,主动按压-减压心肺复苏术的临床效果和安全性。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库(2002年5月)、MEDLINE和EMBASE。我们检查了检索到的文章的参考文献列表,并联系了生产主动减压装置的企业。

入选标准

所有比较主动按压-减压心肺复苏术与标准徒手心肺复苏术的随机或半随机研究,研究对象为心脏骤停的成年人,由训练有素的医疗或护理团队进行心肺复苏。

数据收集与分析

数据由独立人员提取。所有数据均按照意向性分析原则进行分析。必要时联系原始研究的作者以获取更多信息。如有适当,对研究进行累积,并估计合并相对风险(RR)。根据环境(院外或院内)和参与团队组成(仅由医生或护理人员参与)进行亚组分析是预先设定的。

主要结果

纳入了12项试验:10项在院外环境中进行,1项仅在院内进行,1项既有院内部分也有院外部分。4项试验的分配隐藏充分。两项院内研究在质量(A级和C级)和规模(773例和53例患者)上差异很大。两项研究均未发现ACDR CPR和STR在任何结局上存在差异。在院外环境中进行的试验共纳入4162例患者。ACDR CPR和STR在即刻死亡率(RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94 - 1.03])或出院时死亡率(RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98 -

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验