ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Automatic Compression-Defibrillation Apparatus: An Animal Study and A Manikin-Based Simulation Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChest compression and defibrillation are essential components of cardiac arrest treatment. Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCD) and automated external defibrillators (AED) are used separately in clinical practice. We developed an automated compression-defibrillation apparatus (ACDA) that performs mechanical chest compression and automated defibrillation. We investigated the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with automatic CPR (A-CPR) compared to that with MCCD and AED (conventional CPR: C-CPR).
methodsPigs were randomized into A-CPR or C-CPR groups: The A-CPR group received CPR+ACDA, and the C-CPR group received CPR+MCCD+AED. Hemodynamic parameters, outcomes, and time variables were measured. During a simulation study, healthcare providers performed a basic life support scenario for manikins with an ACDA, MCCD, and AED, and time variables and chest compression parameters were measured.
resultsThe animals showed no significant in hemodynamic effects, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal CO
conclusionsCPR using ACDA showed similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes as CPR using AED and MCCD separately, with the advantages of a reduction in the time to compression, time to defibrillation, and hands-off time.
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.