{"title":"手动操作与机械化魔法:关于手动胸外按压与机械胸外按压的当前观点。","authors":"Conor Crowley,Justin Salciccioli,Helen Pocock,Ari Moskowitz","doi":"10.1097/mcc.0000000000001208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE OF REVIEW\r\nMechanical chest compression devices are increasingly deployed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We discuss the data supporting the use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest and provide an opinion about the future of the technology.\r\n\r\nRECENT FINDINGS\r\nMultiple randomized trials investigating the use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have not demonstrated improved outcomes. There is little prospective evidence to support the use of mechanical chest compression devices in other settings. Data from observational studies do not support the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices for in-hospital cardiac arrest, but there may be a role for mechanical chest compressions for cardiac arrest in procedural areas and cardiac arrest prior to cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.\r\n\r\nSUMMARY\r\nMechanical chest compression devices offer a solution to some of the human limiting factors of resuscitation, but have failed to demonstrate meaningful improvement in outcomes from cardiac arrest. Routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest is not supported by evidence.","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Manual mastery vs. mechanized magic: current opinions on manual vs. mechanical chest compressions.\",\"authors\":\"Conor Crowley,Justin Salciccioli,Helen Pocock,Ari Moskowitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/mcc.0000000000001208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE OF REVIEW\\r\\nMechanical chest compression devices are increasingly deployed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We discuss the data supporting the use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest and provide an opinion about the future of the technology.\\r\\n\\r\\nRECENT FINDINGS\\r\\nMultiple randomized trials investigating the use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have not demonstrated improved outcomes. There is little prospective evidence to support the use of mechanical chest compression devices in other settings. Data from observational studies do not support the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices for in-hospital cardiac arrest, but there may be a role for mechanical chest compressions for cardiac arrest in procedural areas and cardiac arrest prior to cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.\\r\\n\\r\\nSUMMARY\\r\\nMechanical chest compression devices offer a solution to some of the human limiting factors of resuscitation, but have failed to demonstrate meaningful improvement in outcomes from cardiac arrest. Routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest is not supported by evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/mcc.0000000000001208\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/mcc.0000000000001208","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Manual mastery vs. mechanized magic: current opinions on manual vs. mechanical chest compressions.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Mechanical chest compression devices are increasingly deployed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We discuss the data supporting the use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest and provide an opinion about the future of the technology.
RECENT FINDINGS
Multiple randomized trials investigating the use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have not demonstrated improved outcomes. There is little prospective evidence to support the use of mechanical chest compression devices in other settings. Data from observational studies do not support the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices for in-hospital cardiac arrest, but there may be a role for mechanical chest compressions for cardiac arrest in procedural areas and cardiac arrest prior to cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
SUMMARY
Mechanical chest compression devices offer a solution to some of the human limiting factors of resuscitation, but have failed to demonstrate meaningful improvement in outcomes from cardiac arrest. Routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest is not supported by evidence.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Critical Care delivers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and most exciting developments in critical care from across the world. Published bimonthly and featuring thirteen key topics – including the respiratory system, neuroscience, trauma and infectious diseases – the journal’s renowned team of guest editors ensure a balanced, expert assessment of the recently published literature in each respective field with insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews.