Lucas心肺复苏机在抢救心脏骤停患者中应用的Meta分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-1949.2019.03.009

摘要
图/表
参考文献(29)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1963 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的对Lucas心肺复苏机在抢救心脏骤停患者中应用的临床效果和并发症情况进行评估。方法利用数据库PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、维普、万方、中国知网，分别检索从1981年1月至2017年12月相关的外文和中文文献，以心脏骤停患者为研究对象，比较Lucas复苏机和徒手心肺复苏(CPR)抢救的复苏效果和并发症情况，以自主循环恢复率(ROSC)、入院生存率、出院生存率、30 d生存率、并发症发生情况作为结局指标进行Meta分析。结果本文共纳入随机对照试验6篇，包含8386例患者。在ROSC、入院生存率、出院生存率、30 d生存率方面，Lucas心肺复苏机相比于徒手按压并不具有优势（P>0.05）。同时，使用Lucas心肺复苏机的胸骨骨折发生率要高于徒手按压（RR1.74，95%CI1.24～2.45，P=0.001）。结论目前已有研究尚不能支持Lucas心肺复苏机的临床优势，Lucas心肺复苏机的复苏效果仍需要更多随机对照试验支持。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	王琳
	秦非
	丁宇

关键词 ： Lucas心肺复苏机, 心脏骤停, 随机对照试验

通讯作者: 丁宇（1993-），男，医师，E-mail:1055909276@qq.com。

作者简介: 王琳（1962-），女，硕士研究生，教授，E-mail:wanglindj@126.com。

引用本文:

王琳，秦非，丁宇. Lucas心肺复苏机在抢救心脏骤停患者中应用的Meta分析[J]. 中国急救医学, 2019, 39(3): 242-247.
Wang Lin, Qin Fei, Ding Yu. A meta-analysis on the application of Lucas cardiopulmonary resuscitator in rescuing patients with cardiac arrest. Chinese Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 2019, 39(3): 242-247.

链接本文:

http://www.cnemergency.org.cn/CN/10.3969/j.issn.1002-1949.2019.03.009 或 http://www.cnemergency.org.cn/CN/Y2019/V39/I3/242

［1］张文武.急诊内科学(第2版)［M］.北京：人民卫生出版社， 2007. ［2］Field JM, Hazinski MF, Sayre MR, et al. Part 1: executive summary: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care［J］. Circulation, 2010, 122(18 Suppl 3):S640-656. ［3］Abella BS, Alvarado JP, Myklebust H, et al.Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest［J］. JAMA, 2005, 293(3):305-310. ［4］Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest［J］. JAMA, 2005, 293(3):299-304. ［5］张秋, 周湘桂, 黄亮.当前急诊医学研究的热点方向及其进展［J］. 中国急救医学, 2010, 30(3):212-215. ［6］Axelsson C, Karlsson T, Axelsson B, et al. Mechanical active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (P(ET)CO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)［J］. Resuscitation, 2009, 80(10):1099-1103. ［7］韩彩虹.LUCAS-(TM)系统胸外按压的效果观察［J］.当代护士（中旬刊）， 2015， 10：119-120. ［8］Perkins GD, Woollard M, Cooke MW, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol［J］. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med， 2010, 18:58. ［9］Koster RW, Beenen LF, van der Boom EB, et al. Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest_ A randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority［J］. Eur Heart J, 2017, 38(40):3006-3013. ［10］Anantharaman V, Ng BL, Ang SH, et al. Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report［J］. Singapore Med J, 2017, 58(7):424-431. ［11］Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial［J］. Lancet, 2015, 385(9972):947-955.［12］Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventionalcardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial［J］. JAMA, 2014, 311(1):53-61. ［13］Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, et al. A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation［J］. Resuscitation, 2011, 82(6):702-706. ［14］Rehatschek G, Muench M, Schenk I, et al.Mechanical LUCAS resuscitation is effective, reduces physical workload and improves mental performance of helicopter teams［J］. Minerva Anestesiol, 2016, 82(4):429-437. ［15］Putzer G, Fiala A, Braun P, et al.Manual versus mechanical chest compressions on surfaces of varying softness with or without backboards: a randomized, crossover manikin study［J］. J Emerg Med, 2016, 50(4):594-600. ［16］Kim TH, Hong KJ, Sang Do S, et al. Quality between mechanical compression on reducible stretcher versus manual compression on standard stretcher in small elevator［J］. Am J Emerg Med, 2016, 34(8):1604-1609. ［17］Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, et al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study［J］. Am J Emerg Med, 2013, 31(2):384-389. ［18］Blomberg H, Gedeborg R, Berglund L, et al. Poor chest compression quality with mechanical compressions in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, cross-over manikin study［J］. Resuscitation, 2011, 82(10):1332-1337. ［19］Hardig BM, Lindgren E, stlund O, et al. Outcome among VF/VT patients in the LINC (LUCAS IN cardiac arrest) trial-A randomised, controlled trial［J］. Resuscitation, 2017,115:155-162.  ［20］Szarpak L, Smereka J, Ladny J.Improvement of the quality of chest compression performed by novice physicians using a LUCAS-3 device A randomized crossover manikin trial［J］. Resuscitation, 2017, 118:e53. ［21］Estock JL, Curinga HK, Li A, et al. Comparison of chest compression interruption times across 2 automated devices: a randomized,〖JP〗 crossover simulation study［J］. Am J Emerg Med, 2016, 34(1):57-62. ［22］丰安, 石玲. LUCASTM2型心肺复苏仪在急诊进行心肺复苏的效果观察［J］. 中国医药指南, 2016, 14(16):51-52. ［23］Gates S, Lall R, Quinn T, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation［J］. Health Technol Assess, 2017, 21(11):1-176. ［24］Esibov A, Banville I, Chapman FW, et al. Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial［J］. Resuscitation, 2015, 91:116-121. ［25］Smekal D, Lindgren E, Sandler H, et al. CPR-related injuries after manual or mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device: a multicentre study of victims after unsuccessful resuscitation［J］. Resuscitation, 2014, 85(12):1708-1712. ［26］Rubertsson S, Silfverstolpe J, Rehn L, et al. The study protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in cardiac arrest) study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation［J］. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2013, 21:5. ［27］Gates S, Smith JL, Ong GJ, et al. Effectiveness of the LUCAS device for mechanical chest compression after cardiac arrest: systematic review of experimental, observational and animal studies［J］. Heart, 2012, 98(12):908-913. ［28］Couper K, Smyth M, Perkins GD. Mechanical devices for chest compression: to use or not to use［J］. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2015, 21(3):188-194. ［29］Perkins GD, Brace S, Gates S. Mechanical chest-compression devices: current and future roles［J］. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2010, 16(3):203-210.