MedicineWorld.Org
Your gateway to the world of medicine
Home
News
Cancer News
About Us
Cancer
Health Professionals
Patients and public
Contact Us
Disclaimer

Medicineworld.org: Using Device To Give CPR

Back to heart watch blog Blogs list Cancer blog  


Subscribe To Heart Watch Blog RSS Feed  RSS content feed What is RSS feed?

Using Device To Give Cpr

Using Device To Give CPR
Scientists looking for methods to improve survival from cardiac arrest were surprised by the results of a study comparing manual CPR compressions with those given by an FDA-approved mechanical device.

The randomized study, conducted in five North American cities including Columbus, showed that victims of sudden cardiac arrest were more likely to be discharged alive from the hospital if they received manual cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rather than CPR administered by the mechanical device.

Results of the study are reported in the June 14 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Lynn White, clinical research manager in emergency medicine at Ohio State University Medical Center, coordinated the 34 medic crews involved in the Columbus study. "Everyone thought the device was a great idea and that its ability to provide compressions of much higher quality than those administered by humans would be lifesaving," said White. "The results are certainly not what we anticipated at the onset of the study."

The study involved 1,071 people who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Columbus, Seattle, Pittsburgh, and Vancouver and Calgary, Canada. The study, originally planned to last 12-18 months, was halted in March 2005, nine months after it began, when it became apparent that the study device was not improving long-term outcomes.

The study device, the AutoPulse Resuscitation System, consists of a short backboard with a band fitted over the chest of the patient in cardiac arrest. At the push of a button, the band constricts the chest and delivers 80 compressions per minute.

In a controlled laboratory setting, the device produced greater blood flow to the heart and brain than manual CPR. But when deployed in real-life emergencies, as provided in the study, scientists found that patients were less likely to survive if they received compressions from the device. In the AutoPulse group, survival to discharge from the hospital was 5.8 percent, while survival to discharge in the manual group was 9.9 percent.

Michael Sayre, a doctor in emergency medicine at Ohio State University Medical Center and principal investigator of the Columbus study site, said researchers involved in the study agree the idea of using devices to provide mechanical chest compressions should not be abandoned, but that further evaluation is needed, perhaps to improve design of the device or the way it is used.

"Given that so few people survive cardiac arrest, we need high quality research to learn how to save more lives," said Sayre.



Posted by: Daniel    Source




Did you know?
Scientists looking for methods to improve survival from cardiac arrest were surprised by the results of a study comparing manual CPR compressions with those given by an FDA-approved mechanical device. The randomized study, conducted in five North American cities including Columbus, showed that victims of sudden cardiac arrest were more likely to be discharged alive from the hospital if they received manual cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rather than CPR administered by the mechanical device.

Medicineworld.org: Using Device To Give CPR

Main Page| Cancer blog| Cancer blogs list| Lung cancer blog| Colon cancer blog| Prostate cancer blog| Breast cancer blog| Diabetes watch blog| Heart watch blog| Allergy blog| Bladder cancer blog| Cervical cancer blog| Colon cancer news blog| Diabetes news blog| Esophageal cancer blog| Gastric cancer blog| Health news blog| Heart news blog| Infectious disease blog| Kidney watch blog| Lung disease blog| Lung cancer news blog| Mesothelioma blog| Neurology blog| Breast cancer news blog| OBGYN blog| Ophthalmology blog| Ovarian cancer blog| Cancer news blog| Pancreas cancer blog| Pediatrics blog| Prostate cancer news blog| Psychology blog| Research blog| Rheumatology blog| Society news blog| Uterine cancer blog| Weight watch blog|

Copyright statement
The contents of this web page are protected. Legal action may follow for reproduction of materials without permission.