Cargando…
Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority
AIMS: Mechanical chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with AutoPulse or LUCAS devices has not improved survival from cardiac arrest. Cohort studies suggest risk of excess damage. We studied safety of mechanical CC and determined possible excess damage compared with manua...
Autores principales: | Koster, Rudolph W, Beenen, Ludo F, van der Boom, Esther B, Spijkerboer, Anje M, Tepaske, Robert, van der Wal, Allart C, Beesems, Stefanie G, Tijssen, Jan G |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29088439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx318 |
Ejemplares similares
-
Arterial blood pressure differences between AutoPulse™ and Lucas2™during mechanic cardiopulmonary resuscitation
por: Frey, Manuel, et al.
Publicado: (2016) -
Mechanische CPR (AutoPulse™) in Bauchlage, machbar?
por: Pietsch, U., et al.
Publicado: (2020) -
Comparison of in-hospital use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: AUTOPULSE vs LUCAS
por: Kim, Hyun Tae, et al.
Publicado: (2019) -
Efficacy of AutoPulse for Mechanical Chest Compression in Patients with Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation
por: Gorący, Jarosław, et al.
Publicado: (2022) -
1036. Comparison of the hemodynamic parameters of two external chest compression devices (LUCAS versus AUTOPULSE) in a swine model of ventricular fibrillation
por: Pantazopoulos, C, et al.
Publicado: (2014)