Preview

Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology

Advanced search

CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE

https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2012-8-2-220-225

Full Text:

Abstract

At the present there are principles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) which are reflected in the recommendations of the AHA and ESC of 2010. They include strict rules on well-timed and proper closed-chest cardiac massage. According to these rules chest compressions should be repeated at least 100 times per minute at a depth of not less than 5 cm. To comply with the standards is not easy even for skilled staff, operator tiredness quickly leads to decrease in CPR quality. Various mechanical devices for closed-chest cardiac massage are used nowadays. One of them is LUCAS system. In some studies LUCAS system showed an efficacy and safety comparable with manual closed-chest cardiac massage. Design features of the LUCAS device do not disturb other life maintaining activities — defibrillation, mechanical ventilation. The device permeability for X-rays makes possible the use of LUCAS in cath labs, if CPR is needed during the intervention procedure. LUCAS system can serve as an alternative tool for CPR. It can be used in intensive care units, as well as be at the disposal of special emergency teams.

About the Authors

V. A. Sulimov
I.M. Setchenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation


Yu. V. Gavrilov
I.M. Setchenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation


E. O. Okisheva
I.M. Setchenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation


References

1. Sulimov VA. Sudden cardiac death. Moscow: Borges, 2004. Russian (Сулимов В.А. Внезапная сердечная смерть. Москва: Боргес; 2004).

2. Chamberlain D., Handley A., Colquhoun. Time of change. Resuscitation 2003;58(3):237–249.

3. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Resuscitation 2005;67 (S1):7–86.

4. Wik L. Rediscovering the importance of chest compressions to improve the outcome from cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2003; 58 (3): 267–271.

5. Nolana JP , Soarb J, Zidemanc DA, et al., on behalf of the ERC Guidelines Writing Group. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010. Resuscitation 2010;81:1219 –1276.

6. Field JM, Hazinski MF , Sayre MR et al. 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Part 1: Executive Summary. Circulation 2010;122:S640–S656.

7. Ochoa FJ, Ramalle-Gуmara E, Lisa V, Saralegui I. The effect of rescuer fatigue on the quality of chest compressions. Resuscitation 1998; 37: 149–52.

8. Hightower D, Thomas S, Stone C, et al. Decay in quality of closed-chest compressions over time. Annals of Emergency Medicine 1995; 26: 300–303.

9. Rubertsson S, Huzevka T , Smekal D, Johansson J. Early Survival After Cardiac Arrest In A Pilot Study Using The LUCAS Device Compared To Manual Chest Compressions During CPR. Circulation2007;116: II 386 (Abstract 1813).

10. Maule Y . L’assistancecardiaqueexterne: nouvelle approchedans la RCP . Urgences&Accueil 2007 (7); 29:4–7.

11. Axelsson C, Nestin J, Svensson L, Axelsson Å, Herlitz J. Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest — A pilot study. Resuscitation 2006;71:47–55.

12. Verstraete S, De Knock J, Müller N, et al. Does the use of LUCAS influence survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest patients? ERC congress 2008; 22.05.2008–25.05.2008, Ghent, Belgium. Poster 240 (on file at Jolife).

13. Bonnemeier H, Olivecrona G, Simonis G, et al. Automated continuous chest compression for in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with pulseless electrical activity: A report of five cases. International Journal of Cardiology 2009;136(2):e39–50.

14. Bonnemeier H, Olivecrona G K. The decisive role of effective continuous chest compression for in-hospital resuscitation of pulseless electrical activity. Resuscitation 2008; 77S: S7–S8 (AS–019).

15. Wagner H, Terkelsen, CJ, Friberg H, et al. Cardiac arrest in the catheterization laboratory: A 5-year experience of using mechanical chest compression to facilitate PCI during prolonged resuscitation ef- forts. Resuscitation 2010;81:383–387.

16. Larsen AI, Hjornevik AS, Ellingsen CL, Nilsen DWT. Cardiac arrest with continuous mechanical chest compression during PCI: A report on the use of the LUCAS device. Resuscitation 2007;75(3):454– 459.

17. Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T , Rubertsson S. No difference in autopsy detected injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions compared with mechanical compressions with the LUCAS device — A pilot study. Resuscitation 2009; 80: 1104–1107.

18. Menzies D, Barton D, Darcy C, Nolan N. Does the LUCAS device increase trauma during CPR. Resuscitation 2008;77S: S13(AS–034).

19. Bonnemeier H, Gerling I, Barantke M, Schunkert H. Necropsy findings of non-survivors of CPR after mechanical and conventional chest compression. ERC congress 2008; 22.05.2008–25.05.2008, Ghent, Belgium. Poster 470 (on file at Jolife).


For citation:


Sulimov V.A., Gavrilov Yu.V., Okisheva E.O. CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2012;8(2):220-225. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2012-8-2-220-225

Views: 589


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1819-6446 (Print)
ISSN 2225-3653 (Online)