Transcript of AutoPulse vs. LUCAS2 Mechanical CPR Devices. Effectiveness of LUCAS2 vs. AutoPulse for CPR Dana. Increased coronary perfusion pressure than manual CPR.
Comparison between CPR Autopulse(zoll) Type of Instrument and Manual CPR Technique in Implementing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. ZHANG Yu- lian,ZHANG Hao. Department of General Surgery,the First People′s Hospital of Shangqiu,Shangqiu 4. China Objective Compare the use of Autopulse(zoll) type of cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument with the manual standard CPR technique to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Autopulse(zoll) type CPR device.
Objective Compare the use of Autopulse(zoll) type of cardiopulmonary resuscitation instrument with the manual standard CPR technique to evaluate the clinical. The AutoPulse is an automated, portable, battery-powered cardiopulmonary resuscitation device created by Revivant and subsequently purchased and currently. Mechanical versus manual CPR chest. So what is the evidence for mechanical vs manual CPR? 1. to show that the Autopulse achieves ROSC better than manual CPR.
Methods 1. 22 cardiopulmonary arrest patients occured in hospital were carried out CPR with Autopulse(zoll) type instrument(named test group) and with manual CPR technique(named control group) respectively. Compare the circulation,respiration,CPR success rate and 2. Results Mean arterial pressure and pulse oxygen saturation levels of the test group were higher than those of the control group,with statistical significance(P0. Spontaneous circulation recovery time in the test group was less than that of the control group((6. P0. 0. 5); CPR success rate of the test group was higher than that of the control group(7.
P0. 0. 1); 2. 4 h survival rate of the test group was higher than that of the control group,with statistical significance(3. P0. 0. 5). Conclusion CPR instrument had superiority over manual CPR technique and may be an alternative to manual CPR new instrument. It should be promoted in clinical practice. Chinese Journal Full- text Database. Hits. 1. SUN Jing,MENG Fan- shan,JI Da,et al. Emergency Department,General Hospital of PLA,Beijing 1. China; Influence Factors of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Performed by Healthcare Professionals[J]; Chinese General Practice; 2.
You wonder whether mechanical CPR or manual CPR is more effective at achieving a restoration of spontaneous circulation and. (554 AutoPulse vs 517 manual CPR).
Hallstrom A./Rea T. D./Sayre M. R. et al. Dr. A. Hallstrom, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, 1. NE 4. 5th St, Seattle, WA 9. United States; Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out- of- hospital cardiac arrest: A randomized trial[J]; Digest of the World Core Medical Journals(Cardiology); 2.
Hock Ong M. E./Ornato J. P./Edwards D. P. et al. Dr. J. P. Ornato, Department of Emergency Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, 1. E Marshall St, Richmond, VA 2.
United States; Use of an automated,load- distributing band chest compression device for out- of- hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation[J]; Digest of the World Core Medical Journals(Cardiology); 2. Chinese Journal Full- text Database. Hits. 1. Jiang Jinxia,Peng Youqing,Ma Sufang,et al(Medical College of Tongji University,Shanghai 2. China); Research on training methods and retraining time of cardio- pulmonary resuscitation skill of nurses[J]; Chinese Nursing Research; 2. WANG Gang,ZHANG Xiao,YANG Chun- yan,et al. Teaching Section of Emergency,the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical College,Kunming 6.
China; Use of Internet Platform in CPR Teaching[J]; Chinese General Practice; 2. ZHANG Ying,LI Hong- yu,CUI Mei- ling,et al. Liaoning Medical College,Jinzhou 1. China; Survey of Community Nurses′ Pre- hospital Emergency Competency of Cardiac Arrest[J]; Chinese General Practice; 2. TANG Zhongzhi,ZHAO Zhigang,LIU Jie(Department of Emergency,Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command,Wuhan,Hubei,4. Observation on effect of triadic cardiopulmonary resuscitation team in clinical emergency treatment[J]; Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice; 2.
Is mechanical CPR better than manual CPR > 2. Three Part Question. In [patients in cardiac arrest] is [mechanical CPR or standard manual CPR] more effective at achieving [survival to hospital discharge]? Clinical Scenario.
A 5. 6 year- old man suffers a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest. He is given immediate bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). A paramedic ambulance crew arrives after 8 minutes.
The first recorded cardiac rhythm shows ventricular fibrillation. The ambulance crew continue CPR in accordance with current Advanced Life Support guidelines. Initial resuscitation attempts including three defibrillation attempts fail. The paramedic team is equipped with and fully trained in the use of a mechanical CPR device and this is applied and the patient transferred to the nearest emergency department. You wonder whether mechanical CPR or manual CPR is more effective at achieving a restoration of spontaneous circulation and improving the patient's chances of leaving hospital alive. Search Strategy. Medline (between 1st January 1. December 2. 00. 7)Embase (between 1.
December 2. 00. 7)Cin. AHL (between 1. 98. December 2. 00. 7)The Cochrane Library (Issue 4 2.
Medline, Embase, Cin. AHL: [mechanical. OR device. mp OR automated. OR LUCAS. mp or AUTOPULSE. AND [chest compression. OR CPR. mp ) AND (exp asystole. OR cardiac adj arrest]Cochrane: [Mechanical OR AUTOPULSE OR LUCAS] AND [chest compression OR CPR] AND [asystole OR cardiac arrest OR arrest].
The search found 4. Medline, Embase and Cin. AHL databases. Excluding case studies, 9 of these articles were relevant to this investigation and were analysed further. Searching the Cochrane Library identified 1. All 5 of these articles had been identified by the previous search.
Eight out of the 9 studies analysed used either the Auto. Pulse Resuscitation System or the Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) as a mechanical CPR device. Relevant Paper(s)Author, date and country. Patient group. Study type (level of evidence)Outcomes.
Key results. Study Weaknesses. Axelsson et al,2. Sweden. 32. 8 patients suffering from cardiac arrest (1.
LUCAS vs 1. 69 to manual CPR)Prospective, multicenter, cluster randomised trial. Return of spontaneous circulation. LUCAS device used in only 6. Numerous exclusion criteria.
Hospital admission alive. Casner et al,2. 00. USA1. 62 patients suffering out- of- hospital cardiac arrest treated by San Francisco Fire Department (6. Auto. Pulse vs 9. Case match using retrospective chart review. Patient arrival to emergency department with sustained ROSC determined by measurable non- invasive blood pressure. Subjective endpoint.
No matching for other morbidities. No information about personnel training in use of Auto. Pulse device. No measure of effectiveness of manual CPR.
Auto. Pulse only deployed with late responders. Dickinson et al,1. USA2. 0 patients suffering from out- of- hospital cardiac arrest (1. Thumper vs 1. 0 to manual CPR)Prospective, randomised trial.
Decrease in ETCO2 from 5 minutes after starting CPR to initiation of patient transfer to hospital. Questionable clinical significance (no survivors). Odd/even day randomisation. CPR group (2 machine failure, 1 extubated)Hallstrom et al,2. USA & Canada.
Auto. Pulse vs 5. CPR)Prospective multicentre, cluster- randomised trial. Survival to 4 hours post emergency call. Study stopped following first planned interim monitoring. No information on quality of manual chest compressions.
Longer time (2. 1 minutes longer) from 9. VF/VT patients in Auto. Pulse group. Survival to hospital discharge. Cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge.
Krep et al,2. 00. Germany. 46 patients suffering from out of hospital cardiac arrest treated with Auto. Pulse. Prospective observational case series. Return of spontaneous circulation. No comparison group.
Mixture of bystander CPR and no bystander CPR. Auto. Pulse CPR considered insufficient and replaced with manual CPRLarsen et al,2. Norway. 13 patients receiving concomitant CPR (for cardiac arrest or severe hypotension and bradycardia) using LUCAS and coronary intervention. Case series. Mean systolic blood pressure. Hg. Mixture of patients with cardiac arrests and hypotension and bradycardia. Only 3 patients survived procedure and none discharged from hospital.
Mean diastolic blood pressure. Hg. Ong et al,2. 00. USA7. 83 patients suffering from out- of- hospital non- traumatic arrest (2.
Auto. Pulse vs 4. Observational cohort study with intention- to- treat analysis. Return of spontaneous circulation.
Only 2. 10 patients out of the 2. CPR group received mechanical CPR. Faster initial response time in mechanical CPR group (mean 2. Survival to hospital admission.
Survival to hospital discharge. Steen et al,2. 00. Sweden. 10. 0 patients suffering from out- of- hospital cardiac arrest treated with LUCASCase series. Return of spontaneous circulation. No comparison group. Survival after 3.
Timerman et al,2. Brazil and USA3. 1 patients suffering in- hospital cardiac arrest. Subjects included following 1.
ALS. Received alternating manual CPR (1. Auto. Pulse CPR (6. Case series. Peak aortic pressure (mm. Hg)1. 53±2. 8 mm. Hg vs 1. 15±4. 2 mm.
Hgv. Usable pressure signals present in only 1. Differing rates of compression. No analysis of clinical outcome. Peak right atrial pressure. Hg vs 8. 3±4. 0 mm. Hg. Coronary perfusion pressure. Hg vs 1. 5±1. 1 mm.
Hg. Comment(s). There is strong evidence that good quality CPR improves outcome following cardiac arrest. Providing good quality CPR for long periods of time or during the transport of patients may be difficult. Mechanical CPR devices have the potential to overcome these problems. The two most commonly used mechanical CPR devices are the Auto. Pulse Resuscitation System and the LUCAS. Trials comparing mechanical and manual CPR vary widely in quality and often study different patient groups, mechanical CPR devices and protocols.
As of yet, no trial has attempted to compensate for the Hawthorne effect on provision of manual CPR. Searching the Clinical.
Trials. gov database in January 2. Auto. Pulse) and manual CPR (NCT0. Clinical Bottom Line. There is currently no evidence supporting the routine use of mechanical CPR devices for patients suffering out of hospital cardiac arrest. References. Axelsson, C., Nestin, J., Svensson, L., Axelsson, Å. Herlitz, J. Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out- of- hospital cardiac arrestA pilot study. Resuscitation 2. 00.
Casner, M., Andersen, D. Isaacs, S. The impact of a new CPR assist device on rate of return of spontaneous circulation in out- of- hospital cardiac arrest. Prehospital Emergency Care, 2. Dickinson, E., Verdile, V., Schneider, R. Salluzzo, R. Effectiveness of mechanical versus manual chest compressions in out- of- hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: A pilot study. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 1. Hallstrom, A., Rea, T.
D., Sayre, M. R., Christenson, J., Anton, A. R., Mosesso Jr, V. N., Van Ottingham, L., Olsufka, M., Pennington, S. White, L. J. Manual Chest Compression vs Use of an Automated Chest Compression Device During Resuscitation Following Out- of- Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Trial. JAMA, 2. 00. 6; 2.
Krep, H., Mamier, M., Breil, M., Heister, U., Fischer, M. Hoeft, A. Out- of- hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the Auto. Pulse system: A prospective observational study with a new load- distributing band chest compression device. Resuscitation, 2. Larsen, A. I., Hjornevik, A.
S., Ellingsen, C. L. & Nilsen, D.
W. Cardiac arrest with continuous mechanical chest compression during percutaneous coronary intervention A report on the use of the LUCAS device. Resuscitation. 2. Ong, M. E. H., Ornato, J. P., Edwards, D. P., Dhindsa, H. S., Best, A. M., Ines, C.
S., Hickey, S., Clark, B., Williams, D. C. & Powell, R.
G. Use of an Automated, Load- Distributing Band Chest Compression Device for Out- of- Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation. JAMA 2. 00. 6; 2. Steen, S., Sjöberg, T., Olsson, P. Young, M. Treatment of out- of- hospital cardiac arrest with LUCAS, a new device for automatic mechanical compression and active decompression resuscitation.
Resuscitation 2. 00. Timerman, S., Cardoso, L.
F., Ramires, J. A. Halperin, H. Improved hemodynamic performance with a novel chest compression device during treatment of in- hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2.