Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Skeletal and soft tissue injuries after manual and mechanical chest compressions
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Skeletal and soft tissue injuries after manual and mechanical chest compressions
Do you wish to request the book?
Skeletal and soft tissue injuries after manual and mechanical chest compressions
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Skeletal and soft tissue injuries after manual and mechanical chest compressions
2019
Overview
Abstract
Aims
To determine the rate of injuries related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in cardiac arrest non-survivors, comparing manual CPR with CPR performed using the Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS).
Methods and results
We prospectively evaluated 414 deceased adult patients using focused, standardized post-mortem investigation in years 2005 through 2013. Skeletal and soft tissue injuries were noted, and soft tissue injuries were evaluated with respect to degree of severity. We found sternal fracture in 38%, rib fracture in 77%, and severe soft tissue injury in 1.9% of cases treated with CPR with manual chest compressions (n = 52). Treatment with LUCAS CPR (n = 362) was associated with significantly higher rates of sternal fracture (80% of cases), rib fracture (96%), and severe soft tissue injury (10%), including several cases of potentially life-threatening injuries.
Conclusion
LUCAS CPR causes significantly more CPR-related injuries than manual CPR, while providing no proven survival benefit on a population basis. We suggest judicious use of the LUCAS device for cardiac arrest.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
