Tranberg Tinne, Lassen Jens F, Kaltoft Anne K, Hansen Troels M, Stengaard Carsten, Knudsen Lars, Trautner Sven, Terkelsen Christian J
Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Prehospital Medical Care Service, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015 Apr 22;23:37. doi: 10.1186/s13049-015-0114-2.
Mechanical chest compressions have been proposed to provide high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite the growing use of mechanical chest compression devices, only few studies have addressed their impact on CPR quality. This study aims to evaluate mechanical chest compressions provided by LUCAS-2 (Lund University Cardiac Assist System) compared with manual chest compression in a cohort of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases.
In this prospective study conducted in the Central Denmark Region, Denmark, the emergency medical service attempted resuscitation and reported data on 696 non-traumatic OHCA patients between April 2011 and February 2013. Of these, 155 were treated with LUCAS CPR after an episode with manual CPR. The CPR quality was evaluated using transthoracic impedance measurements collected from the LIFEPAK 12 defibrillator, and the effect was assessed in terms of chest compression rate, no-flow time and no-flow fraction; the fraction of time during resuscitation in which the patient is without spontaneous circulation receiving no chest compression.
The median total episode duration was 21 minutes, and the episode with LUCAS CPR was significantly longer than the manual CPR episode, 13 minutes vs. 5 minutes, p < 0.001. The no-flow fraction was significantly lower during LUCAS CPR (16%) than during manual CPR (35%); difference 19% (95% CI: 16% to 21%; p < 0.001). No differences were found in pre- and post-shock no-flow time throughout manual CPR and LUCAS CPR. Contrary to the manual CPR, the average compression rate during LUCAS CPR was in conformity with the current Guidelines for Resuscitation, 102/minute vs. 124/minute, p < 0.001.
Mechanical chest compressions provided by the LUCAS device improve CPR quality by significantly reducing the NFF and by improving the quality of chest compression compared with manual CPR during OHCA resuscitation. However, data on end-tidal Co2 and chest compression depth surrogate parameters of CPR quality could not be reported.
机械胸外按压已被提议用于提供高质量的心肺复苏(CPR),但尽管机械胸外按压设备的使用日益增加,仅有少数研究探讨了其对CPR质量的影响。本研究旨在评估在一组院外心脏骤停(OHCA)病例中,LUCAS-2(隆德大学心脏辅助系统)提供的机械胸外按压与徒手胸外按压相比的效果。
在丹麦中日德兰地区进行的这项前瞻性研究中,紧急医疗服务部门对2011年4月至2013年2月期间的696例非创伤性OHCA患者进行了复苏尝试并报告了相关数据。其中,155例在进行了徒手CPR后接受了LUCAS CPR治疗。使用从LIFEPAK 12除颤器收集的经胸阻抗测量值评估CPR质量,并根据胸外按压速率、无血流时间和无血流分数进行效果评估;无血流分数是指在复苏过程中患者无自主循环且未接受胸外按压的时间占比。
总发作时间的中位数为21分钟,LUCAS CPR发作时间显著长于徒手CPR发作时间,分别为13分钟和5分钟,p<0.001。LUCAS CPR期间的无血流分数(16%)显著低于徒手CPR期间(35%);差值为19%(95%CI:16%至21%;p<0.001)。在整个徒手CPR和LUCAS CPR过程中,电击前后的无血流时间未发现差异。与徒手CPR相反,LUCAS CPR期间的平均按压速率符合当前的复苏指南,分别为102次/分钟和124次/分钟,p<0.001。
与OHCA复苏期间的徒手CPR相比,LUCAS设备提供的机械胸外按压通过显著降低无血流分数和提高胸外按压质量,改善了CPR质量。然而,无法报告关于呼气末二氧化碳和CPR质量的胸外按压深度替代参数的数据。