...
首页> 外文期刊>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine >Mechanical CPR devices compared to manual CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and ambulance transport: a systematic review
【24h】

Mechanical CPR devices compared to manual CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and ambulance transport: a systematic review

机译:院外心脏骤停和救护车运输过程中机械CPR设备与手动CPR的比较:系统回顾

获取原文
           

摘要

Aims The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature to address the question: “In pre-hospital adult cardiac arrest (asystole, pulseless electrical activity, pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia and Ventricular Fibrillation), does the use of mechanical Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) devices compared to manual CPR during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and ambulance transport, improve outcomes (e.g. Quality of CPR, Return Of Spontaneous Circulation, Survival)”. Methods Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included manikin and human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports. Results Out of 88 articles identified, only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these 10 articles, 1 was Level of Evidence (LOE) 1, 4 LOE 2, 3 LOE 3, 0 LOE 4, 2 LOE 5. 4 studies evaluated the quality of CPR in terms of compression adequacy while the remaining six studies evaluated on clinical outcomes in terms of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge and Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC). 7 studies were supporting the clinical question, 1 neutral and 2 opposing. Conclusion In this review, we found insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of mechanical CPR devices in settings of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and during ambulance transport. While there is some low quality evidence suggesting that mechanical CPR can improve consistency and reduce interruptions in chest compressions, there is no evidence that mechanical CPR devices improve survival, to the contrary they may worsen neurological outcome.
机译:目的本文的目的是对已发表的文献进行系统的综述,以解决以下问题:“在院前成人心脏骤停(无搏动,无脉搏电活动,无脉性室性心动过速和室颤)中,是否使用了机械性心脏-与在院外心脏骤停和救护车运输过程中进行手动CPR相比,肺复苏(CPR)装置可改善预后(例如CPR的质量,自发循环的恢复,生存)。方法系统地搜索包括PubMed,Cochrane库(包括用于系统评价的Cochrane数据库和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库),Embase和AHA EndNote主库的数据库。从文章和评论的交叉引用以及使用SCOPUS和Google Scholar进行的正向搜索中收集了更多的引用。该评价的纳入标准包括对成人心脏骤停和抗心律不齐药物的人体模型和人体研究,同行评审。不包括评论文章,病例系列和病例报告。结果在确定的88篇文章中,只有10项研究符合纳入标准,需要进一步审查。在这10篇文章中,有1项是证据水平(LOE)1、4项LOE 2、3项LOE 3、0项LOE 4、2项LOE5。有4项研究评估了CPR的压缩充分性,而其余6项研究评估了CPR的质量。自发循环返回(ROSC),入院生存率,出院生存率和脑功能分类(CPC)的临床结果。 7项研究支持该临床问题,其中1项为中性,2项为反对。结论在这篇综述中,我们发现没有足够的证据支持或反对在院外心脏骤停和救护车运输过程中使用机械CPR设备。尽管有一些低质量的证据表明机械心肺复苏术可以改善一致性并减少胸部按压的中断,但是没有证据表明机械心肺复苏术可以提高生存率,相反,它们可能会使神经功能恶化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号