|
|
|
|
|
| A meta-analysis on the application of Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator in rescuing patients with cardiac arrest |
| Wang Lin, Qin Fei, Ding Yu |
| Department of Military Nursing, Non-Commissioned Officers School, Army Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050081, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective This meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical effects and complications of the Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator. Methods Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, wipp, Wan Fang, CNKI were used to search for foreign and Chinese documents from January 1981 to December 2017. Comparing the recovery effect and complication of Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator and unarmed CPR in patients with cardiac arrest, the outcome index was meta-analysis with the recovery rate of autonomic circulation, survival rate of admission, survival rate of discharge, survival rate of 30 days and complication. Results This paper included 6 articles in randomized controlled trials, which involves 8386 patients. The effect of Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator is not better than unarmed CPR on the recovery rate of autonomic circulation, survival rate of admission, survival rate of discharge, survival rate of 30 days (P>0.05). On the other hand, Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator, the rate of sternum fracture is higher than that of unarmed CPR. Conclusion At present, there is no evidence of research to support the clinical advantages of Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator. More randomized controlled trials are needed to support the effect of Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator.
|
|
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
Ding Yu, E-mail: 1055909276@qq.com
|
|
|
|
| ［1］张文武.急诊内科学(第2版)［M］.北京：人民卫生出版社， 2007.
［2］Field JM, Hazinski MF, Sayre MR, et al. Part 1: executive summary: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care［J］. Circulation, 2010, 122(18 Suppl 3):S640-656.
［3］Abella BS, Alvarado JP, Myklebust H, et al.Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest［J］. JAMA, 2005, 293(3):305-310.
［4］Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest［J］. JAMA, 2005, 293(3):299-304.
［5］张秋, 周湘桂, 黄亮.当前急诊医学研究的热点方向及其进展［J］. 中国急救医学, 2010, 30(3):212-215.
［6］Axelsson C, Karlsson T, Axelsson B, et al. Mechanical active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (P(ET)CO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)［J］. Resuscitation, 2009, 80(10):1099-1103.
［7］韩彩虹.LUCAS-(TM)系统胸外按压的效果观察［J］.当代护士（中旬刊）， 2015， 10：119-120.
［8］Perkins GD, Woollard M, Cooke MW, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol［J］. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med， 2010, 18:58.
［9］Koster RW, Beenen LF, van der Boom EB, et al. Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest_ A randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority［J］. Eur Heart J, 2017, 38(40):3006-3013.
［10］Anantharaman V, Ng BL, Ang SH, et al. Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report［J］. Singapore Med J, 2017, 58(7):424-431.
［11］Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial［J］. Lancet, 2015, 385(9972):947-955.［12］Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventionalcardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial［J］. JAMA, 2014, 311(1):53-61.
［13］Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, et al. A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation［J］. Resuscitation, 2011, 82(6):702-706.
［14］Rehatschek G, Muench M, Schenk I, et al.Mechanical LUCAS resuscitation is effective, reduces physical workload and improves mental performance of helicopter teams［J］. Minerva Anestesiol, 2016, 82(4):429-437.
［15］Putzer G, Fiala A, Braun P, et al.Manual versus mechanical chest compressions on surfaces of varying softness with or without backboards: a randomized, crossover manikin study［J］. J Emerg Med, 2016, 50(4):594-600.
［16］Kim TH, Hong KJ, Sang Do S, et al. Quality between mechanical compression on reducible stretcher versus manual compression on standard stretcher in small elevator［J］. Am J Emerg Med, 2016, 34(8):1604-1609.
［17］Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, et al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study［J］. Am J Emerg Med, 2013, 31(2):384-389.
［18］Blomberg H, Gedeborg R, Berglund L, et al. Poor chest compression quality with mechanical compressions in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, cross-over manikin study［J］. Resuscitation, 2011, 82(10):1332-1337.
［19］Hardig BM, Lindgren E, stlund O, et al. Outcome among VF/VT patients in the LINC (LUCAS IN cardiac arrest) trial-A randomised, controlled trial［J］. Resuscitation, 2017,115:155-162.
［20］Szarpak L, Smereka J, Ladny J.Improvement of the quality of chest compression performed by novice physicians using a LUCAS-3 device A randomized crossover manikin trial［J］. Resuscitation, 2017, 118:e53.
［21］Estock JL, Curinga HK, Li A, et al. Comparison of chest compression interruption times across 2 automated devices: a randomized,〖JP〗 crossover simulation study［J］. Am J Emerg Med, 2016, 34(1):57-62.
［22］丰安, 石玲. LUCASTM2型心肺复苏仪在急诊进行心肺复苏的效果观察［J］. 中国医药指南, 2016, 14(16):51-52.
［23］Gates S, Lall R, Quinn T, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation［J］. Health Technol Assess, 2017, 21(11):1-176.
［24］Esibov A, Banville I, Chapman FW, et al. Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial［J］. Resuscitation, 2015, 91:116-121.
［25］Smekal D, Lindgren E, Sandler H, et al. CPR-related injuries after manual or mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device: a multicentre study of victims after unsuccessful resuscitation［J］. Resuscitation, 2014, 85(12):1708-1712.
［26］Rubertsson S, Silfverstolpe J, Rehn L, et al. The study protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in cardiac arrest) study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation［J］. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2013, 21:5.
［27］Gates S, Smith JL, Ong GJ, et al. Effectiveness of the LUCAS device for mechanical chest compression after cardiac arrest: systematic review of experimental, observational and animal studies［J］. Heart, 2012, 98(12):908-913.
［28］Couper K, Smyth M, Perkins GD. Mechanical devices for chest compression: to use or not to use［J］. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2015, 21(3):188-194.
［29］Perkins GD, Brace S, Gates S. Mechanical chest-compression devices: current and future roles［J］. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2010, 16(3):203-210. |
|
|
|
Address: 1 North 2nd Street,
Zhongguancun, 
