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 Carmelo, Melero-Bascones María

机构信息

Service de Gériatrie à Orientation Cardiologique et Neurologique, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière-Charles Foix, AP-HP, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6), 7 Avenue de la République, Ivry-sur-Seine, Ile-de-France, France, 94205.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 20;2013(9):CD002751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002751.pub3.

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 testing this device have shown discordant results.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of active chest compression-decompression CPR compared to standard chest compression CPR on mortality and neurological function in adults with cardiac arrest treated either in-hospital or out-of-hospital.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 12 of 12, 2012), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to January week 1 2013), and EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to week 1 2013) on 14 January 2013. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles, contacted experts in the field, and searched ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. When needed, we contacted the authors of the primary studies. If appropriate, we cumulated studies and pooled relative risk (RR) estimates. We predefined subgroup analyses according to setting (out-of-hospital or in-hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only).

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, 27 new related publications were found, but they did not all fulfil inclusion criteria or concerned participants already reported in previous publications. In the end, we included 10 trials in this review: Eight were in out-of-hospital settings; one was set in-hospital only; and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in four studies. The two in-hospital studies were different in quality and size (773 and 53 participants). Both found no differences between ACDR CPR and STR in any outcome.Out-of-hospital trials cumulated 4162 participants. There were no differences between ACDR CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.03) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). The pooled RR of neurological impairment of any severity was 1.71 (95% CI 0.90 to 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 to 9.83). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited, and few participants had neurological damage.There was no difference between ACDR CPR and STR with regard to complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax, or haemothorax (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACDR CPR.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Active chest compression-decompression in people with cardiac arrest is not associated with any 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,在每次按压后主动减压胸部。对该装置进行的随机对照试验结果不一。

目的

确定与标准胸外按压心肺复苏术相比,主动胸外按压-减压心肺复苏术对院内心脏骤停或院外心脏骤停成年患者死亡率和神经功能的影响。

检索方法

我们于2013年1月14日更新了对Cochrane图书馆(2012年第12期)、MEDLINE(OVID,1946年至2013年1月第1周)和EMBASE(OVID,1980年至2013年第1周)中CENTRAL的检索。我们检查了检索到的文章的参考文献列表,联系了该领域的专家,并检索了ClinicalTrials.gov。

选择标准

所有比较主动按压-减压与标准徒手胸外按压的随机或半随机研究,研究对象为接受过训练的医疗或护理团队进行心肺复苏的心脏骤停成年患者。

数据收集与分析

我们基于意向性分析独立提取数据。必要时,我们联系了主要研究的作者。如果合适,我们汇总研究并合并相对风险(RR)估计值。我们根据环境(院外或院内)和参与团队组成(仅由医生或护理人员参与)预先设定了亚组分析。

主要结果

在本次更新中,发现了27篇新的相关出版物,但并非所有出版物都符合纳入标准,或者涉及先前出版物中已报道的参与者。最终,我们在本综述中纳入了10项试验:8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项研究的分配隐藏充分。两项院内研究在质量和规模上有所不同(分别为773名和53名参与者)。两项研究均未发现ACDR CPR与标准胸外按压在任何结局上存在差异。院外试验共纳入4162名参与者。对于死亡率,无论是在心脏骤停后立即(RR 0.98,95%置信区间(CI)0.94至1.03)还是在出院时(RR 0.99,95% CI 0.98至1.01),ACDR CPR与标准胸外按压之间均无差异。任何严重程度的神经功能障碍的合并RR为1.71(95% CI 0.90至3.25),在ACDR CPR幸存者中,严重神经损伤更频繁的趋势不显著(RR 3.11,95% CI 0.98至9.83)。然而,神经功能结局的评估有限,且很少有参与者存在神经损伤。在肋骨或胸骨骨折、气胸或血胸等并发症方面,ACDR CPR与标准胸外按压之间无差异(RR 1.09,95% CI 0.86至1.38)。ACDR CPR导致的皮肤创伤和瘀斑更为常见。

作者结论

心脏骤停患者进行主动胸外按压-减压未显示出任何明显益处。

相似文献

1
Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 20;2013(9):CD002751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002751.pub3.
2
Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(2):CD002751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002751.pub2.
3
Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002(3):CD002751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002751.
4
Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(3):CD002751. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002751.
6
Sertindole for schizophrenia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
7
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
8
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 9;1(1):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub3.
9
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
10
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Efficacy of AutoPulse for Mechanical Chest Compression in Patients with Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 23;19(5):2557. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052557.
2
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?
Sao Paulo Med J. 2018 Mar;136(2):170-176. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2018.0083230318.

本文引用的文献

2
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan 19(1):CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub2.
8
[Random control trial of the efficacy of cardio pump on pre-hospital cardiac arrest].
Zhongguo Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2003 May;15(5):292-4.
10
Short- and long-term survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jul 10;160(13):1969-73. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.13.1969.

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