https://doi.org/10.4081/scenario.2017.121
Esiti neurologici dei pazienti colpiti da arresto cardiaco in ambito extraospedaliero: efficacia delle compressioni toraciche meccaniche vs compressioni toraciche manuali: una revisione della letteratura.
Ricevuto: 24 gennaio 2018
Accettato: 24 gennaio 2018
Pubblicato: 24 gennaio 2018
Accettato: 24 gennaio 2018
Abstract Views: 296
PDF: 164
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.
Autori
ed il contesto in cui si trovano ad eseguire la Rianimazione Cardio Polmonare (RCP). Per ovviare a questi problemi, sono stati ideati dei dispositivi meccanici in grado di produrre compressioni toraciche
esterne efficaci da un punto di vista emodinamico, che favoriscono la sopravvivenza e la conservazione delle funzioni neurologiche.
Berdowski J, Berg r, TiJssen J, kosTer r. Global incidences of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and survival rates: Systematic review of 67 prospective studies. Resuscitation. 2010; 81(11):1479-87.
ATwood C, eisenBerg M, HerliTz J, reA T. Incidence of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe. Resuscitation. 2005; 67(1):75-80.
soAr J, nolAn J, BöTTiger B, Perkins g, loTT C, CArli P, eT Al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult
advanced life support. Resuscitation. 2015;100-147.
neuMAr r, sHusTer M, CAllAwAy C, genT l, ATkins d, BHAnJi F, eT Al. Part 1: Executive Summary 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update
for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015; 132(18):S315-S367.
VAdeBonCoeur T, sTolz s, PAnCHAl A, silVer A, VenuTi M, ToBin J, eT Al. Chest compression depth and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resus-
citation. 2014; 85(2):182-188.
krAruP n, Terkelsen C, JoHnsen s, CleMMensen P, oliVeCronA g, HAnsen T, eT Al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac
arrest is hampered by interruptions in chest compressions – a nationwide prospective feasibility study. Resuscitation. 2011; 82(3):263-269.
Foo n, CHAng J, su s, lin H, CHen k, CHeng C, eT Al. A stabilization device to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during ambu-
lance transportation: A randomized crossover trial. Resuscitation. 2013; 84(11):1579-1584.
ØdegAArd s, olAsVeengen T, sTeen P, krAMer-JoHAnsen J. The effect of transport on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital car-
diac arrest. Resuscitation. 2009; 80(8):843-848.
PuTzer g, BrAun P, ziMMerMAnn A, Pedross F, sTrAPAzzon g, Brugger H, eT Al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more ef-
fective during helicopter rescue – a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31(2):384-389.
reHATsCHek g, MuenCH M, sCHenk i, diTTriCH w, sCHewe J, dirk C, eT Al. Mechanical LUCAS resuscitation is effective, reduces physical workload and
improves mental performance of helicopter teams. Minerva anestesiol. 2016; 82(4):429-437.
gässler H, VenTzke M, lAMPl l, HelM M. Transport with ongoing resuscitation: a comparison between manual and mechanical compression.
Emerg Med J. 2013; 30(7):589-592.
Fox J, FieCHTer r, gersTl P, url A, wAgner H, lüsCHer T, eT Al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport
conditions. Acute Card Care. 2013; 15(1):1-6.
BloM M, BeeseMs s, HoMMA P, ziJlsTrA J, HulleMAn M, HoeiJen d, eT Al. Improved Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Use of Automated
External De brillators. Circulation. 2014; 130(21):1868-1875.
HüPFl M, selig H, nAgele P. Chest-compression-only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010; 376(9752):1552-
Brooks s, HAssAn n, BigHAM B, Morrison l. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest Cochrane Database Syst Rev.. 2014
;(2):CD007260
sMekAl d, lindgren e, sAndler H, JoHAnsson J, ruBerTsson s. CPR-related injuries after manual or mechanical chest compressions with the LUCASTM
device: a multicentre study of victims after unsuccessful resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2014; 85(12):1708-1712.
TrAnBerg T, lAssen J, kAlToFT A, HAnsen T, sTengAArd C, knudsen l, eT Al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest be- fore and after introduction of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS-2; a prospective, observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;(22):23-37.
Bonnes J, Brouwer M, nAVArese e, VerHAerT d, VerHeugT F, sMeeTs J, eT Al. Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus CPR including a mechanical chest compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a comprehensive meta-analysis from randomized and observational studies. Ann Emerg Medicine. 2016; 67(3):349-360.
TAng l, gu w, wAng F. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of randomized con- trolled trials. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:15635
Perkins g, lAll r, Quinn T, deAkin C, Cooke M:HJ, lAMB s, eT Al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9972):947-955.
ruBerTsson s, lindgren e, sMekAl d, ösTlund o, silFVersTolPe J, liCHTVeld r, eT Al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous de brillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial. Jama. 2014; 311(1):53-61.
wik l, olsen J, Persse d, sTerz F, lozAno M, Brouwer M, eT Al. Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014; 85(6):741-748.
HAllsTroM A, reA T, sAyre M, CHrisTenson J, AnTon A, Mosesso V, eT Al. Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. Jama. 2006; 295(22):2620-2628.
Perkins gd, CoTTrell P, gATes s. Is adrenaline safe and effective as a treatment for out of hospital cardiac arrest? BMJ. 2014; 348.
duMAs F, Bougouin w, geri g, lAMHAuT l, Bougle A, dAViAud F, eT Al. Is epinephrine during cardiac arrest associated with worse outcomes in resusci-
tated patients? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(22):2360-2367.
Agenzie di supporto
Come citare
Ranfone, M. (2018). Esiti neurologici dei pazienti colpiti da arresto cardiaco in ambito extraospedaliero: efficacia delle compressioni toraciche meccaniche vs compressioni toraciche manuali: una revisione della letteratura. Scenario® - Il Nursing Nella Sopravvivenza, 34(4), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.4081/scenario.2017.121
Aniarti ha scelto di applicare la Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione Non Commerciale 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY-NC 4.0) a tutti i manoscritti da pubblicare.