https://doi.org/10.4081/scenario.2022.504
The cardiac mechanical massager in the Best Perfusion Route of the USL Toscana Sud Est. Retrospective study in the Siena-Grosseto 118 operations centre
Submitted: 1 April 2022
Accepted: 1 April 2022
Published: 1 April 2022
Accepted: 1 April 2022
Abstract Views: 527
PDF (Italiano): 163
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Cardiopulmonary massage (CPR) is a fundamental procedure to help a patient in cardiac arrest. However, manual CPR is not of high quality in many situations. This is why mechanical devices have been developed for external chest compressions that, not being prone to fatigue, could potentially exceed some limits of manual CPR: one of these systems is the Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) currently in use in the USL Toscana Sud Est and regulated by the Best Perfusion Company Route.
Arresto cardiaco improvviso, Best Perfusion per garantire la più alta qualità di cura. InSaluteNews. testo disponibile al sito: https://www.insalutenews.it/in-salute/arresto-cardiaco-improvviso-best-perfusion-per-garantire-la-piu-alta-qualita-di-cura [ultimo accesso online 05/12/2021];
Liu M, Shuai Z, Ai J, Tang K. et al. Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Medicina. 2019; 98 (44), e17550;
Merchant RM, Topjian AA, Panchal AR, Cheng A, et al. Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support, Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support, Neonatal Life Support, Resuscitation Education Science, and Systems of Care Writing Groups. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20;142(16_suppl_2):S337-S357.
Jasmeet Soar, Jerry P. Nolan, Bernd W. Böttiger, Gavin D. Perkins, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support, Resuscitation, Volume 95, 2015, Pages 100-147, ISSN 0300-9572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.016.
Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, Pedross F. et al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31(2), 384-389;
Lee JG, Kim JS, Roh SG. Comparison of chest compression and ventilation volume using LUCAS and manual in virtual reality-based ambulance simulation - A manikin study. Korean J Emerg Med Ser 2018; 2 (3): 67-76;
Dutto L, Ricca M. Manovre e procedure cardiocircolatorie. AHA Advisory Statement. Circulation 2008; 117: 2162. Sezione III - Manovre e procedure cardiocircolatori.
Bonnemeier H, Simonis G, Olivecrona G, Weidtmann B. et al. Continuous mechanical chest compression during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with pulseless electrical activity. Resuscitation. 2011; 82 (2), 155-159;
Kim HT, Kim JG, Jang YS, et al. Comparison of in-hospital use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. (AUTOPULSE vs LUCAS). Medicina (Baltimora). 2019; 98 (45):e17881;
Perkins GD, Brace S, Gates S. Mechanical chest-compression devices: current and future roles. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2010; 16 (3): 203-210;
Smekal D, Lindgren E, Sandler H, Johansson J. et al. CPR-related injuries after manual or mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device: a multicentre study of victims after unsuccessful resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2014; 85 (12): 1708-12;
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. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38 (40): 3006-3013;
Kahn PA, Dhruva SS, Rhee TG, Ross JS. Use of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, 2010-2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2 (10):e1913298. Published 2019 Oct 2;
Marti J, Hulme C, Ferreira Z, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017; 117: 1-7;
Czyz R, Leśkiewicz M, Czyz I. Mechanical devices to compress the patient's chest in a state of sudden cardiac arrest - future or everyday life of emergency medicine. Journal of Education, Health and Sport. 2018; 8 (3): 51-66;
Wang PL, Brooks SC. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 8 (8): CD007260. Published 2018 Aug 20;
Liu M, Tang K, Ai J, Shuai Z et al. Efficiency of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a meta-analysis. Yournal of Xiangya Medicine. 2020; 2 (5): 10;
Perkins GD, Woollard M, Cooke MW, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010;18:58. Published 2010 Nov 5.
Supporting Agencies
How to Cite
Righi, L., Olivagnoli, G., Bolognini, R., Mazzolai, I., Pastore, M., & Trapassi, S. (2022). The cardiac mechanical massager in the <i>Best Perfusion</i> Route of the USL Toscana Sud Est. Retrospective study in the Siena-Grosseto 118 operations centre. Scenario® - Il Nursing Nella Sopravvivenza, 39(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.4081/scenario.2022.504
Aniarti has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.