Lung injuries secondary to mechanical chest compressions

Rodríguez, Alonso A. Mateos; Pascual, José María Navalpotro; Vallejo, Francisco Peinado; García, Antonio Pablo Gámez; Belmonte, Amado Andrés

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.03.040

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This has been confirmed in dedicated studies comparing the LUCAS ® device with manual CPR . Moreover, a recent series of 33 potential uDCD donors under mechanical cardiac compression showed a limited number of mild and no severe thoracic and lung injuries, assessed by chest X‐ray, tracheal and nasogastric tube examination and bronchoscopy (Level 4) .…”

Section: Ethical‐regulatory Framework Practices and Evidencementioning

confidence: 64%

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: European practices and recommendations for the development and optimization of an effective programme

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe shortage of organs remains one of the biggest challenges in transplantation. To address this, we are increasingly turning to donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors and now in some countries to uncontrolled DCD donors. We consolidate the knowledge on uncontrolled DCD in Europe and provide recommendations and guidance for the development and optimization of effective uncontrolled DCD programmes.

show abstract

Section: Ethical‐regulatory Framework Practices and Evidencementioning

confidence: 64%

Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death: European practices and recommendations for the development and optimization of an effective programme

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mechanical chest compression resulted in a five-fold increase in risk of liver laceration vs manual chest compression (Figure 3, P = .383). 6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] While this result itself is not statistically significant, an increased severity of rib fracture is correlated with an increased severity of liver injury. In Smekal et al, all patients with liver injuries also had rib injuries.…”

Section: Liver Injurymentioning

confidence: 85%

“…When compared to manual chest compression, mechanical chest compression use doubled the risk of rib and sternal fractures (Figure 3). 6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Chest wall fractures (denoting both rib fracture and sternal fracture) had the highest incidence out of all the studies.…”

Section: Chest Wall Fracturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main characteristics of eligible studies are demonstrated in Table 1. 6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] The LUCAS II mechanical chest compression device was used in the included studies except Koster et al, which also looked at outcomes for the AutoPulse TM device. 9 Males accounted for 71% of patients.…”

Section: Study Selection and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Incidence rate of iatrogenic injuries following CPR is depicted in Figure 2. 6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] The most frequent injuries associated with mechanical chest compression were rib fractures (55.7%) and sternal fractures (28.3%), followed by liver laceration (4.6%). In the manual chest compression group, rib fractures (42.3%) and sternal fractures (19.2%) were less frequent compared to mechanical group, with higher incidence of lung laceration (3.7%), pneumothorax (3.4%), and hemothorax (3.2%) than corresponding values in mechanical chest compression group (2.3%, 1.7%, and 1.1%, respectively).…”

Section: Pooled Analysis Of Iatrogenic Injuriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Iatrogenic Injuries in Manual and Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Chun

Zhang

Toraih

et al. 2021

The American Surgeon™

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Mechanical chest compression has been shown to be equivalent to manual chest compression in providing survival benefits to patients experiencing cardiac arrest. There has been a growing need for a contemporary review of iatrogenic injuries caused by mechanical in comparison with manual chest compression. Our study aims to analyze the studies that document significant life-threatening iatrogenic injuries caused by mechanical and manual chest compression. Methods A systematic review of PubMed and Embase was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies published after January 1st, 2000 were reviewed using inclusion/exclusion criteria and completed by May 2020. A total of 7202 patients enrolled in 15 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Results Significant life-threatening iatrogenic injuries had higher odds of occurring when mechanical chest compression was used compared to manual chest compression, especially for hemothorax and liver lacerations. Mechanical chest compression involves consistently deeper compression depths compared to manual chest compression, potentially resulting in more injuries. In the mechanical chest compression cohort, chest wall fractures had the highest incidence rate (55.7%), followed by sternal fracture (28.3%), lung injuries (3.7%), liver (1.0%), and diaphragm (.2%) lacerations. Conclusions Mechanical chest compression was associated with more iatrogenic injuries as compared to manual chest compression. Further research is needed to define the appropriate application of mechanical in comparison with manual chest compression in different scenarios. Levels of provider training, different mechanical chest compression device types, patient demographics, and compression duration/depth may all play roles in influencing outcomes.

show abstract