The comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related trauma: Mechanical versus manual chest compressions

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F27283933%3A_____%2F21%3A00009773" target="_blank" >RIV/27283933:_____/21:00009773 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11120/21:43921478 RIV/00064173:_____/21:N0000262 RIV/00023884:_____/21:00009124

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0379073821001328?httpAccept=text/xml" target="_blank" >https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0379073821001328?httpAccept=text/xml</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110812" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110812</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related trauma: Mechanical versus manual chest compressions

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Introduction: Aim: To compare injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) caused by manual or mechanical chest compressions in resuscitated patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study was based on autopsy reports of patients who died after CPR; individuals with a traumatic cause(s) of cardiac arrest were excluded. Patients were divided into two CPR groups: mechanical and manual. The Abbreviated Injury Scale was used to objectively evaluate the most serious injuries and the New Injury Scale Score was used to summarize all injuries. Results: Of 704 patients, data from 630 individuals were analyzed after exclusion of those with trauma-related cardiac arrest. Manual CPR was performed in 559 patients and mechanical in 64 subjects. There were no differences in sex, bystander CPR, or etiology of cardiac arrest between the two groups, however, mechanical CPR was significantly longer (X vs. Y, p = 0.0005) and patients in this group were younger (X vs. Y, p = 0.0067). No differences were found in the incidence of CPR-related injuries between the groups. The median number of the most serious injury (according to Abbreviated Injury Scale) was 3, which was not statistically different; the median number of injuries according to the New Injury Severity Score was 13 in both groups (low probability of fatal injury). Type of injuries were also similar with the exception of pericardial damage that was more prevalent in mechanical CPR group. Only age and bystander CPR were found to be independently associated with the autopsy-documented trauma. Conclusion: Our results suggest that mechanical chest compressions do not increase the incidence and severity of CPR-related injury in comparison with manual methods despite significantly longer CPR duration.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related trauma: Mechanical versus manual chest compressions

Popis výsledku anglicky

Introduction: Aim: To compare injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) caused by manual or mechanical chest compressions in resuscitated patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study was based on autopsy reports of patients who died after CPR; individuals with a traumatic cause(s) of cardiac arrest were excluded. Patients were divided into two CPR groups: mechanical and manual. The Abbreviated Injury Scale was used to objectively evaluate the most serious injuries and the New Injury Scale Score was used to summarize all injuries. Results: Of 704 patients, data from 630 individuals were analyzed after exclusion of those with trauma-related cardiac arrest. Manual CPR was performed in 559 patients and mechanical in 64 subjects. There were no differences in sex, bystander CPR, or etiology of cardiac arrest between the two groups, however, mechanical CPR was significantly longer (X vs. Y, p = 0.0005) and patients in this group were younger (X vs. Y, p = 0.0067). No differences were found in the incidence of CPR-related injuries between the groups. The median number of the most serious injury (according to Abbreviated Injury Scale) was 3, which was not statistically different; the median number of injuries according to the New Injury Severity Score was 13 in both groups (low probability of fatal injury). Type of injuries were also similar with the exception of pericardial damage that was more prevalent in mechanical CPR group. Only age and bystander CPR were found to be independently associated with the autopsy-documented trauma. Conclusion: Our results suggest that mechanical chest compressions do not increase the incidence and severity of CPR-related injury in comparison with manual methods despite significantly longer CPR duration.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30300 - Health sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Forensic Science International

ISSN

0379-0738

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

323

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

JUN

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

5

Strana od-do

—

Kód UT WoS článku

000663341000002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85105323983