ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2015
A mechanical chest compressor closed-loop controller with an effective trade-off between blood flow improvement and ribs fracture reduction.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest compression (CC) is a significant emergency medical procedure for maintaining circulation during cardiac arrest. Although CC produces the necessary blood flow for patients with heart arrest, improperly deep CC will contribute significantly to the risk of chest injury. In this paper, an optimal CC closed-loop controller for a mechanical chest compressor (OCC-MCC) was developed to provide an effective trade-off between the benefit of improved blood perfusion and the risk of ribs fracture. The trade-off performance of the OCC-MCC during real automatic mechanical CCs was evaluated by comparing the OCC-MCC and the traditional mechanical CC method (TMCM) with a human circulation hardware model based on hardware simulations. A benefit factor (BF), risk factor (RF) and benefit versus risk index (BRI) were introduced in this paper for the comprehensive evaluation of risk and benefit. The OCC-MCC was developed using the LabVIEW control platform and the mechanical chest compressor (MCC) controller. PID control is also employed by MCC for effective compression depth regulation. In addition, the physiological parameters model for MCC was built based on a digital signal processor for hardware simulations. A comparison between the OCC-MCC and TMCM was then performed based on the simulation test platform which is composed of the MCC, LabVIEW control platform, physiological parameters model for MCC and the manikin. Compared with the TMCM, the OCC-MCC obtained a better trade-off and a higher BRI in seven out of a total of nine cases. With a higher mean value of cardiac output (1.35 L/min) and partial pressure of end-tidal CO2 (15.7 mmHg), the OCC-MCC obtained a larger blood flow and higher BF than TMCM (5.19 vs. 3.41) in six out of a total of nine cases. Although it is relatively difficult to maintain a stable CC depth when the chest is stiff, the OCC-MCC is still superior to the TMCM for performing safe and effective CC during CPR. The OCC-MCC is superior to the TMCM in performing safe and effective CC during CPR and can be incorporated into the current version of mechanical CC devices for high quality CPR, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital CPR settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.