Fischer M, Breil M, Ihli M, Messelken M, Rauch S, Schewe J-C
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Operative Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Klinik am Eichert der ALB FILS Kliniken, Eicherstr. 3, 73035, Göppingen, Deutschland,
Anaesthesist. 2014 Mar;63(3):186-97. doi: 10.1007/s00101-013-2265-8.
In Germany 100,000-160,000 people suffer from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) annually. The incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after OHCA varies between emergency ambulance services but is in the range of 30-90 CPR attempts per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Basic life support (BLS) involving chest compressions and ventilation is the key measure of resuscitation. Rapid initiation and quality of BLS are the most critical factors for CPR success. Even healthcare professionals are not always able to ensure the quality of CPR measures. Consequently in recent years mechanical resuscitation devices have been developed to optimize chest compression and the resulting circulation. In this article the mechanical resuscitation devices currently available in Germany are discussed and evaluated scientifically in context with available literature. The ANIMAX CPR device should not be used outside controlled trials as no clinical results have so far been published. The same applies to the new device Corpuls CPR which will be available on the market in early 2014. Based on the current published data a general recommendation for the routine use of LUCAS™ and AutoPulse® CPR cannot be given. The preliminary data of the CIRC trial and the published data of the LINC trial revealed that mechanical CPR is apparently equivalent to good manual CPR. For the final assessment further publications of large randomized studies must be analyzed (e.g. the CIRC and PaRAMeDIC trials). However, case control studies, case series and small studies have already shown that in special situations and in some cases patients will benefit from the automatic mechanical resuscitation devices (LUCAS™, AutoPulse®). This applies especially to emergency services where standard CPR quality is far below average and for patients who require prolonged CPR under difficult circumstances. This might be true in cases of resuscitation due to hypothermia, intoxication and pulmonary embolism as well as for patients requiring transport or coronary intervention when cardiac arrest persists. Three prospective randomized studies and the resulting meta-analysis are available for active compression-decompression resuscitation (ACD-CPR) in combination with an impedance threshold device (ITD). These studies compared ACD-ITD-CPR to standard CPR and clearly demonstrated that ACD-ITD-CPR is superior to standard CPR concerning short and long-term survival with good neurological recovery after OHCA.
在德国,每年有10万至16万人发生院外心脏骤停(OHCA)。院外心脏骤停后心肺复苏(CPR)的发生率在不同急救服务机构之间有所差异,但每年每10万居民中进行心肺复苏尝试的次数在30至90次之间。包括胸外按压和通气的基础生命支持(BLS)是复苏的关键措施。基础生命支持的快速启动和质量是心肺复苏成功的最关键因素。即使是医疗专业人员也并非总能确保心肺复苏措施的质量。因此,近年来已开发出机械复苏设备以优化胸外按压及由此产生的循环。本文将讨论德国目前可用的机械复苏设备,并结合现有文献对其进行科学评估。在对照试验之外不应使用ANIMAX心肺复苏设备,因为目前尚未发表临床结果。新的Corpuls心肺复苏设备将于2014年初上市,情况也是如此。根据目前已发表的数据,无法对LUCAS™和AutoPulse®心肺复苏的常规使用给出一般性建议。CIRC试验的初步数据和LINC试验已发表的数据表明,机械心肺复苏显然等同于良好的徒手心肺复苏。为进行最终评估,必须分析大型随机研究的进一步出版物(如CIRC和PaRAMeDIC试验)。然而,病例对照研究、病例系列和小型研究已经表明,在特殊情况和某些病例中,患者将从自动机械复苏设备(LUCAS™、AutoPulse®)中获益。这尤其适用于标准心肺复苏质量远低于平均水平的急救服务机构,以及在困难情况下需要长时间心肺复苏的患者。在因低温、中毒和肺栓塞进行复苏的情况下,以及心脏骤停持续时需要转运或进行冠状动脉介入治疗的患者中,可能也是如此。有三项前瞻性随机研究以及由此产生的荟萃分析可用于主动按压-减压复苏(ACD-CPR)联合阻抗阈值装置(ITD)。这些研究将ACD-ITD-CPR与标准心肺复苏进行了比较,并清楚地表明,在院外心脏骤停后短期和长期生存以及良好神经功能恢复方面,ACD-ITD-CPR优于标准心肺复苏。