4.7 Article

Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Automatic Compression-Defibrillation Apparatus: An Animal Study and A Manikin-Based Simulation Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165333

关键词

cardiopulmonary resuscitation; cardiac arrest; defibrillation; medical device; Hemodynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed an automated compression-defibrillation apparatus (ACDA) and investigated its performance in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) compared to conventional CPR. The results showed that CPR using ACDA had similar effects and outcomes as conventional CPR, with shorter times for chest compression, defibrillation, and hands-off.
Background: Chest compression and defibrillation are essential components of cardiac arrest treatment. Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCD) and automated external defibrillators (AED) are used separately in clinical practice. We developed an automated compression-defibrillation apparatus (ACDA) that performs mechanical chest compression and automated defibrillation. We investigated the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with automatic CPR (A-CPR) compared to that with MCCD and AED (conventional CPR: C-CPR). Methods: Pigs were randomized into A-CPR or C-CPR groups: The A-CPR group received CPR+ACDA, and the C-CPR group received CPR+MCCD+AED. Hemodynamic parameters, outcomes, and time variables were measured. During a simulation study, healthcare providers performed a basic life support scenario for manikins with an ACDA, MCCD, and AED, and time variables and chest compression parameters were measured. Results: The animals showed no significant in hemodynamic effects, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal CO2, and resuscitation outcomes between the two groups. In both animal and simulation studies, the time to defibrillation, time to chest compression, and hands-off time were significantly shorter in the A-CPR group than those in the C-CPR group. Conclusions: CPR using ACDA showed similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes as CPR using AED and MCCD separately, with the advantages of a reduction in the time to compression, time to defibrillation, and hands-off time.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据