An automated CPR device compared with standard chest compressions for out-of-hospital resuscitation.
AuthorJennings, PA; Harriss, L; Bernard, S; Bray, J; Walker, T; Spelman, T; Smith, K; Cameron, P
Source TitleBMC Emergency Medicine
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
University of Melbourne Author/sSpelman, Timothy
AffiliationSurgery (St Vincent's)
Document TypeJournal Article
CitationsJennings, P. A., Harriss, L., Bernard, S., Bray, J., Walker, T., Spelman, T., Smith, K. & Cameron, P. (2012). An automated CPR device compared with standard chest compressions for out-of-hospital resuscitation.. BMC Emerg Med, 12 (1), pp.8-. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-227X-12-8.
Access StatusOpen Access
Open Access at PMChttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3441844
BACKGROUND: Effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation and increased coronary perfusion pressures have been linked to improved survival from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare the rates of survival between conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-CPR) and automated CPR (A-CPR) using AutoPulse™ in adults following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using a matched case-control design across three regional study sites in Victoria, Australia. Each case was matched to at least two (maximum four) controls using age, gender, response time, presenting cardiac rhythm and bystander CPR, and analysed using conditional fixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: During the period 1 October 2006 to 30 April 2010 there were 66 OHCA cases using A-CPR. These were matched to 220 cases of OHCA involving the administration of C-CPR only (controls). Survival to hospital was achieved in 26% (17/66) of cases receiving A-CPR compared with 20% (43/220) of controls receiving C-CPR and the propensity score adjusted odds ratio [AOR (95% CI)] was 1.69 (0.79, 3.63). Results were similar using only bystander witnessed OHCA cases with presumed cardiac aetiology. Survival to hospital was achieved for 29% (14/48) of cases receiving A-CPR compared with 18% (21/116) of those receiving C-CPR [AOR =1.80 (0.78, 4.11)]. CONCLUSIONS: The use of A-CPR resulted in a higher rate of survival to hospital compared with C-CPR, yet a tendency for a lower rate of survival to hospital discharge, however these associations did not reach statistical significance. Further research is warranted which is prospective in nature, involves randomisation and larger number of cases to investigate potential sub-group benefits of A-CPR including survival to hospital discharge.
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".
- Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References