Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Resuscitation ; 179: 9-17, 2022 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35933057

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains poor. A physiologically distinct cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategy consisting of (1) active compression-decompression CPR and/or automated CPR, (2) an impedance threshold device, and (3) automated controlled elevation of the head and thorax (ACE) has been shown to improve neurological survival significantly versus conventional (C) CPR in animal models. This resuscitation device combination, termed ACE-CPR, is now used clinically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the probability of OHCA survival to hospital discharge after ACE-CPR versus C-CPR. METHODS: As part of a prospective registry study, 227 ACE-CPR OHCA patients were enrolled 04/2019-07/2020 from 6 pre-hospital systems in the United States. Individual C-CPR patient data (n = 5196) were obtained from three large published OHCA randomized controlled trials from high-performing pre-hospital systems. The primary study outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and favorable neurological survival. Propensity-score matching with a 1:4 ratio was performed to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Irrespective of initial rhythm, ACE-CPR (n = 222) was associated with higher adjusted odds ratios (OR) of survival to hospital discharge relative to C-CPR (n = 860), when initiated in <11 min (3.28, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.55-6.92) and < 18 min (1.88, 95 % CI, 1.03-3.44) after the emergency call, respectively. Rapid use of ACE-CPR was also associated with higher probabilities of ROSC and favorable neurological survival. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-CPR controls, rapid initiation of ACE-CPR was associated with a higher likelihood of survival to hospital discharge after OHCA.


Assuntos
Reanimação Cardiopulmonar , Serviços Médicos de Emergência , Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar , Animais , Razão de Chances , Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar/terapia , Sistema de Registros , Tórax
2.
Resuscitation ; 170: 1-10, 2022 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34710550

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) utilises a suction cup to lift the chest-wall actively during the decompression phase (AD). We hypothesised that mechanical ACD-CPR (Intervention), with AD up to 30 mm above the sternal resting position, would generate better haemodynamic results than standard mechanical CPR (Control). METHODS: This out-of-hospital adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest trial was prospective, block-randomised and non-blinded. We included intubated patients with capnography recorded during mechanical CPR. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, prisoners, and prior chest surgery. The primary endpoint was maximum tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (pMTCO2) and secondary endpoints were oxygen saturation of cerebral tissue (SctO2), invasive arterial blood pressures and CPR-related injuries. Intervention device lifting force performance was categorised as Complete AD (≥30 Newtons) or Incomplete AD (≤10 Newtons). Haemodynamic data, analysed as one measurement for each parameter per ventilation (Observation Unit, OU) with non-linear regression statistics are reported as mean (standard deviation). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 221 enrolled patients, 210 were deemed eligible (Control 109, Intervention 101). The Control vs. Intervention results showed no significant differences for pMTCO2: 29(17) vs 29(18) mmHg (p = 0.86), blood pressures during compressions: 111(45) vs. 101(68) mmHg (p = 0.93) and decompressions: 21(20) vs. 18(18) mmHg (p = 0.93) or for SctO2%: 55(36) vs. 57(9) (p = 0.42). The 48 patients who received Complete AD in > 50% of their OUs had higher SctO2 than Control patients: 58(11) vs. 55(36)% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical ACD-CPR provided similar haemodynamic results to standard mechanical CPR. The Intervention device did not consistently provide Complete AD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02479152. The Haemodynamic Effects of Mechanical Standard and Active Chest Compression-decompression During Out-of-hospital CPR.


Assuntos
Reanimação Cardiopulmonar , Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar , Parede Torácica , Adulto , Reanimação Cardiopulmonar/métodos , Descompressão , Hemodinâmica , Humanos , Parada Cardíaca Extra-Hospitalar/terapia , Estudos Prospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA