Comparative effectiveness of standard CPR vs active compression-decompression CPR with CardioPump for treatment of cardiac arrest

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorGunaydin, Yahya Kemal
dc.contributor.authorCekmen, Bora
dc.contributor.authorAkilli, Nazire Belgin
dc.contributor.authorKoylu, Ramazan
dc.contributor.authorSert, Ekrem Taha
dc.contributor.authorCander, Basar
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:00:18Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:00:18Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Despite all of the studies conducted on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the mortality rate of cardiac arrest patients is still high. This has led to a search for alternative methods. One of these methods is active compression-decompression CPR (ACD-CPR) performed with the CardioPump. Objective: The differences in the restoration of spontaneous circulation; the 1-, 7-, and 30-day survival rates; and hospital discharge rates between conventional CPR and ACD-CPR performed with CardioPump were investigated. In addition, the differences between the 2 methods with respect to complications were also investigated. Methods: Our study was a prospective, randomized medical device study with a case-control group. Cardiac arrest cases brought to our emergency medicine clinic by the 112 emergency ambulances from out of hospital and patients who had developed cardiac arrest inhospital clinics between April 2015 and September 2015 were included in our study. For randomization, standard CPR was performed on odd days of each month, and CPR using CardioPump was performed on the even days of each month. Results: A total of 181 patients were included in our study. The number of patients who received conventional CPR was determined as 86 (47.5%), and the number of patients who received CPR using the CardioPump was determined as 95 (52.5%). We did not identify any difference between conventional CPR and CardioPump ACD-CPR with respect to restoration of spontaneous circulation, discharge rates, and the 1-, 7-, and 30-day survival rates. (P=.384, P=.601, P=.997, P=.483, and P=.803, respectively) The complication rate was higher in the patient group that received conventional CPR (P<.001). Conclusion: As a result of our study, we did not obtain any evidence supporting the replacement of conventional CPR with ACD-CPR performed using CardioPump. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajem.2015.12.066
dc.identifier.endpage547en_US
dc.identifier.issn0735-6757
dc.identifier.issn1532-8171
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid26806174en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84955475631en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage542en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.12.066
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/11547
dc.identifier.volume34en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000373491100035en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherW B Saunders Co-Elsevier Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal Of Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[Keyword Not Available]en_US
dc.titleComparative effectiveness of standard CPR vs active compression-decompression CPR with CardioPump for treatment of cardiac arresten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu