Part 7: CPR Techniques and Devices

HomeCirculationVol. 122, No. 16_suppl_2Part 7: CPR Techniques and Devices Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBPart 7: CPR Techniques and Devices2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Michael Shuster, Swee Han Lim, Charles D. Deakin, Monica E. Kleinman, Rudolph W. Koster, Laurie J. Morrison, Jerry P. Nolan, Michael R. Sayre, CPR Techniques and Devices Collaborators Syed Sameer Ali, David G. Beiser, Pierre Carli, Suzanne R. Davies, Michael Holzer, Taku Iwami, Mark S. Link, Jim McKendry, Paul M. Middleton, Peter T. Morley, Chika Nishiyama, Giuseppe Ristagno, Sten Rubertsson and Kjetil Sunde Michael ShusterMichael Shuster , Swee Han LimSwee Han Lim , Charles D. DeakinCharles D. Deakin , Monica E. KleinmanMonica E. Kleinman , Rudolph W. KosterRudolph W. Koster , Laurie J. MorrisonLaurie J. Morrison , Jerry P. NolanJerry P. Nolan , Michael R. SayreMichael R. Sayre , CPR Techniques and Devices Collaborators , Syed Sameer AliSyed Sameer Ali , David G. BeiserDavid G. Beiser , Pierre CarliPierre Carli , Suzanne R. DaviesSuzanne R. Davies , Michael HolzerMichael Holzer , Taku IwamiTaku Iwami , Mark S. LinkMark S. Link , Jim McKendryJim McKendry , Paul M. MiddletonPaul M. Middleton , Peter T. MorleyPeter T. Morley , Chika NishiyamaChika Nishiyama , Giuseppe RistagnoGiuseppe Ristagno , Sten RubertssonSten Rubertsson and Kjetil SundeKjetil Sunde Originally published19 Oct 2010https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.971036Circulation. 2010;122:S338–S344Note From the Writing Group: Throughout this article, the reader will notice combinations of superscripted letters and numbers (eg, "Open-Chest CPRALS-CPR&A-004A, ALS-CPR&A-004B"). These callouts are hyperlinked to evidence-based worksheets, which were used in the development of this article. An appendix of worksheets, applicable to this article, is located at the end of the text. The worksheets are available in PDF format and are open access.The success of any cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) technique or device depends on the education and training of the rescuers as well as on resources (including personnel). In the hands of some groups, novel techniques and adjuncts may produce better short- or long-term outcomes than standard CPR. However, a device or technique that provides good-quality CPR when used by a highly trained team or in a test setting may show poor quality and create frequent interruptions in CPR when used in an uncontrolled clinical setting.1While no circulatory adjunct is currently recommended instead of manual CPR for routine use, some circulatory adjuncts are being routinely used in both out-of-hospital and in-hospital resuscitation. If a circulatory adjunct is used, rescuers should be well trained and a program of continuous surveillance should be in place to ensure that use of the adjunct does not adversely affect survival.The following CPR techniques and devices were reviewed during the 2010 International Consensus Conference. It should be noted that interposed abdominal compression (IAC) has not been studied in humans since 1994 and active compression-decompression (ACD) has not been studied in humans since 2003. Therefore these techniques have not been evaluated against the international resuscitation guideline changes of 2000 and 2005 for IAC and 2005 for ACD.Interposed Abdominal Compression (IAC)-CPRALS/BLS-CPR&A-082AConsensus on ScienceTwo randomized controlled trials in in-hospital cardiac arrests, showed improved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge when IAC-CPR was compared with standard CPR (LOE 12; LOE 23). However, there were no differences in neurologically intact survival.One randomized controlled trial in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was unable to show any consistent benefits when IAC-CPR was compared with standard CPR (LOE 2).4Evidence from LOE 35,6 and LOE 57 in-hospital studies suggested better or neutral8,9 hemodynamics with IAC-CPR compared with standard CPR.Treatment RecommendationThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of IAC-CPR.Active Compression-Decompression (ACD)-CPRALS/BLS-CPR&A-084AConsensus on ScienceFive randomized controlled trials (LOE 1)10–14 and 3 controlled trials (LOE 2)15–17 failed to show a difference in ROSC or survival with use of ACD-CPR compared with standard CPR.Six studies (LOE 2)18–23 demonstrated improved ROSC or survival to hospital discharge although there were no statistically significant differences in neurologically intact survival.A meta-analysis14 of 2 trials (826 patients) comparing ACD-CPR with standard CPR after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) did not detect a significant increase in rates of immediate survival or survival to hospital discharge.Treatment RecommendationThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of ACD-CPR.Open-Chest CPRALS-CPR&A-004A, ALS-CPR&A-004BConsensus on ScienceThere are no published randomized controlled trials and very limited data in humans comparing open-chest CPR to standard CPR in cardiac arrest. One retrospective clinical trial (LOE 3)24 demonstrated that ROSC was improved by open-chest CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One case series in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who had failed standard CPR (LOE 4)25 reported ROSC in 13 of 33 highly selected patients; 2 survived to hospital discharge.Multiple animal studies (LOE 5)26–44 using a variety of endpoints demonstrated benefit with open-chest CPR.Treatment RecommendationThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the routine use of open-chest CPR in cardiac arrest.Load Distributing Band (LDB)–CPRALS/BLS-CPR&A-086A, ALS/BLS-CPR&A-086BConsensus on ScienceOne multicenter RCT in over 1000 adults documented no improvement in 4-hour survival and significantly worse neurologic outcome when LDB-CPR administered by EMS providers was compared with traditional CPR for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac origin (LOE 1).45 However, a posthoc analysis of this study revealed significant heterogeneity among study sites (LOE 1).46In one LOE 3 study,47 the use of LDB-CPR was associated with lower odds of 30-day survival (OR 0.4). However, when a smaller (77-patient) subgroup of LDB-CPR-treated patients was analyzed against concurrent controls, an increased rate of ROSC was noted.47Other nonrandomized human series (LOE 3) have reported increased rates of sustained ROSC48,49 and increased survival to discharge49 following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and improved hemodynamics following failed resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest (LOE 4).50 In a prospective before-and-after study (LOE 3),51 the mean no-flow ratio with manual CPR was 0.28 in the first 5 minutes of CPR compared with 0.40 with LDB-CPR. However between 5 and 10 minutes, no-flow time was 0.34 with manual CPR and 0.21 with LDB-CPR.Evidence from both clinical (LOE 1)45,46 and simulation (LOE 5)52 studies suggested that site-specific factors may influence resuscitation quality and device efficacy.A case report documented successful performance of a computed tomography (CT) scan while LDB-CPR was used (LOE 4).53Treatment RecommendationThere are insufficient data to support or refute the routine use of LDB-CPR instead of manual CPR. It may be reasonable to consider LDB to maintain continuous chest compression while undergoing CT scan or similar diagnostic studies, when provision of manual CPR would be difficult.Mechanical (Piston) CPRALS/BLS-CPR&A-083A, ALS/BLS-CPR&A-083BConsensus on ScienceWhen a piston-CPR device was compared with manual CPR, one RCT documented no improvement in ROSC or survival among adults in cardiac arrest (LOE 1).54Supportive data from 1 prospective, randomized crossover-design study (LOE 1)55 and 1 paired-cohort study (LOE 2)56 documented that the use of a piston-CPR device improved hemodynamics during CPR in adult cardiac arrest victims.One prospective pseudorandomized trial documented improvement in hemodynamic variables during CPR in adult cardiac arrest victims but no improvement in ROSC or survival (LOE 2).57Data from 1 prospective cohort study comparing the use of a piston-CPR device with manual CPR documented that the use of a piston-CPR device increased interruption in CPR because time was required to set up and remove the device from patients during transportation in adult OHCA (LOE 2).58Treatment RecommendationThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of piston-CPR instead of manual CPR for adult victims of cardiac arrest.Lund University Cardiac Arrest System (LUCAS) CPRALS/BLS-CPR&A-085A, ALS/BLS-CPR&A-085BConsensus on ScienceThere are no RCTs evaluating the LUCAS device in human cardiac arrest.One study using concurrent controls in witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was unable to show any benefit (ROSC, survival to hospital, or survival to hospital discharge) with the use of the LUCAS device over the use of standard CPR (LOE 2).59One postmortem study showed similar injuries with LUCAS-CPR and standard CPR (LOE 2).60Six case series involving approximately 200 patients have reported variable success in use of the LUCAS device when implemented after an unsuccessful period of manual CPR (LOE 4).61–66Three adult human case reports (LOE 4),62,67,68 3 adult human case series (LOE 4),63,66,69 and 1 animal study (LOE 5)68 reported that the use of a mechanical chest-compression device in cardiac arrest during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) maintained circulation and enabled the procedure to be completed. A small number of patients in the case series survived.Two case reports demonstrated that a CT scan could be performed during CPR with the LUCAS device (LOE 4).53Treatment RecommendationThere are insufficient data to support or refute the use of LUCAS-CPR instead of manual CPR. It may be reasonable to consider LUCAS-CPR to maintain continuous chest compression while undergoing CT scan or similar diagnostic studies, when provision of manual CPR would be difficult.Impedance Threshold Device (ITD)ALS/BLS-CPR&A-081A, ALS/BLS-CPR&A-081BConsensus on ScienceOne meta-analysis that pooled the data from both conventional CPR and ACD-CPR RCTs demonstrated improved ROSC and short-term survival but no significant improvement in either survival to discharge or neurologically intact survival to discharge associated with the use of an ITD in the management of adult OHCA patients (LOE 1).70One RCT suggested that the use of an ITD in combination with ACD-CPR improved 24-hour survival and survival to intensive care unit (ICU) admission in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, compared with ACD-CPR and a sham ITD (LOE 1).71 This contrasts with another RCT that compared ITD plus ACD-CPR with ACD-CPR plus a sham ITD, which did not show significant improvement in ROSC or 24-hour survival with use of the ITD (LOE 1).72One RCT reported that the use of an ITD in combination with standard CPR did not significantly improve ROSC, 24-hour survival, or survival to ICU admission in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, compared with CPR and a sham ITD (LOE 1).73One RCT comparing ACD-CPR plus ITD with CPR in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest showed improved ROSC and 24-hour survival rates associated with ACD-CPR plus ITD, but no significant improvement in rates of hospital discharge or intact neurologic survival to hospital discharge (LOE 1).74One prospective cohort study (with historical control) of CPR plus ITD versus CPR without ITD in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest reported improved survival to emergency department (ED) admission for patients presenting in any rhythm (LOE 3).75Three cohort studies comparing CPR using the 2005 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC plus ITD, with historic controls of CPR using the 2000 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC, demonstrated improved survival to hospital discharge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (LOE 3).76–78 It was not possible to determine the relative contribution of the ITD to the improved outcome.In a porcine model of cardiac arrest, 8 studies demonstrated improved hemodynamic variables during CPR with use of the ITD (LOE 5).79–86 An additional 3 animal studies (LOE 5)87–89 showed no difference in survival or in any hemodynamic variable, and 2 animal studies (LOE 5)88,90 reported evidence of decreased ROSC, 20-minute survival, and arterial oxygen saturation associated with the use of an ITD.Treatment RecommendationThere are insufficient data to support or refute the use of the ITD.AcknowledgmentsWe thank the following individuals (the CPR Techniques and Devices Collaborators) for their collaborations on the worksheets contained in this section: Syed Sameer Ali; David G. Beiser; Pierre Carli; Suzanne R. Davies; Michael Holzer; Taku Iwami; Mark S. Link; Jim McKendry; Paul M. Middleton; Peter T. Morley; Chika Nishiyama; Giuseppe Ristagno; Sten Rubertsson; and Kjetil Sunde.DisclosuresCoSTR Part 7: Writing Group DisclosuresWriting Group MemberEmploymentResearch GrantOther Research SupportSpeakers' Bureau/HonorariaOwnership InterestConsultant/Advisory BoardOtherMichael ShusterSelf-employed—emergency physicianNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneSwee Han LimSingapore General Hosp. Tertiary Healthcare; Sr ConsultantNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneCharles D. DeakinSouthampton University Hospital NHS Trust—DoctorNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneMonica E. KleinmanChildren's Hospital Anesthesia Foundation: Non-profit health care organization—Senior Associate in Critical Care MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneRudolph W. KosterAcademic Medical Center—clinical staff cardiologist*Zoll Medical for study of the safety of the Autopulse automated chest compression device. Funded to the hospital and limited to direct study costs without any personal financial consequence. Jolife for the study of the Lucas automated chest compression device. Money is funded to the hospital and limited to direct study costs without any personal financial consequence*Zoll Medical: two Autopulse devices on loan to the hospital for safety study Jolife: two Lucas devices on loan to the hospital for safety study Phillips: one MRX chest compression feedback device on loan to the hospital for safety study purposesNoneNoneNoneNoneLaurie J. MorrisonSt. Michael's Hospital; clinician scientist*Laerdal Foundation Centre Grant—infrastructure support without salary supportNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneJerry P. NolanRoyal United Hospital NHS Trust: Consultant in Anaesthesia and Critical CareNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneMichael R. SayreThe Ohio State University—Associate ProfessorNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneThis table represents the relationships of writing group members that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure Questionnaire, which all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit. A relationship is considered to be "significant" if (a) the person receives $10 000 or more during any 12-month period, or 5% or more of the person's gross income; or (b) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of the entity, or owns $10 000 or more of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be "modest" if it is less than "significant" under the preceding definition.*Modest.†Significant.CoSTR Part 7: Worksheet Collaborator DisclosuresWorksheet CollaboratorEmploymentResearch GrantOther Research SupportSpeakers' Bureau/HonorariaOwnership InterestConsultant/Advisory BoardOtherSyed Sameer AliPenn State Hershey Medical Center—Critical Care/Resuscitation FellowNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneDavid G. BeiserUniv. of Chicago, Associate ProfessorNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNonePierre CarliAssistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris; Professor and chairman SAMUNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneSuzanne R. DaviesAmbulance Research Institute (Government body—Division of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales) Paramedic Research FellowNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneMichael HolzerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna—Specialist in Internal Medicine, Emergency PhysicianNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneTaku IwamiKyoto University Assistant Professor†Laerdal Foundation—Getting research grant †Sanofi Aventis Getting donation for clinical research on emergency careNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneMark S. LinkTufts Medical Center Hospital PhysicianNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneJim McKendryCity of Winnipeg Training InspectorNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNonePaul M. MiddletonAmbulance Service of NSW: Publicly funded ambulance service—Senior Med. Advisor/Director of ResearchNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNonePeter T. MorleyRoyal Melbourne Hosp; Univ of Melbourne; Director of Medical Education; AHA EEENoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneChika NishiyamaPostgraduate—RN, MPHNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneGiuseppe RistagnoWeil Institute of Critical Care Medicine Assistant Professor Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Researches ResearcherNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneSten RubertssonUppsala University—Professor at the Department of Surgical Sciences/Anesthesiology & Intensive Care*I am receiving money from Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden as a consult dealing with their device LUCAS-mechanical chest compressions. I am also a PI for 'the multi-center LINC trial which is a study of out-of-hospital CA victims allocated to either standard ACLS or ACLS including mechanical chest compressionsNoneNoneNone*Advisory board for Covidean regarding VAPNoneKjetil SundeOslo University Hospital Ulleval Professor and Senior ConsultantNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneThis table represents the relationships of worksheet collaborators that may be perceived as actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest as reported on the Disclosure Questionnaire, which all worksheet collaborators are required to complete and submit. A relationship is considered to be "significant" if (a) the person receives $10 000 or more during any 12-month period, or 5% or more of the person's gross income; or (b) the person owns 5% or more of the voting stock or share of the entity, or owns $10 000 or more of the fair market value of the entity. A relationship is considered to be "modest" if it is less than "significant" under the preceding definition.*Modest.†Significant.AppendixCoSTR Part 7: Worksheet AppendixTask ForceWS IDxPICO TitleShort TitleAuthorsURLALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-081AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of a ITD (I) compared with no ITD (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Impedance threshold deviceSuzanne R. Davies, Paul M. Middletonhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-081A.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-081BIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of a ITD (I) compared with no ITD (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Impedance threshold deviceSyed Sameer Alihttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-081B.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-082AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of Interposed abdominal compressions-CPR (I) compared with standard CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Interposed abdominal compression CPRMichael Holzer, Kjetil Sundehttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-082A.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-083AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of a piston CPR device (eg. Thumper) (I) compared with manual CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Piston (thumper) device CPRGiuseppe Ristagnohttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-083A.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-083BIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of a piston CPR device (eg. Thumper) (I) compared with manual CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Piston (thumper) device CPRJim McKendryhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-083B.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-084AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of manual ACD-CPR (I) compared with standard CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Active compression decompression device (ACD) CPRPierre Carlihttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-084A.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-085AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of mechanical compression full (eg. Lucas) or partial decompression (eg. US version) (I) compared with manual CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Lucas device CPRPeter T. Morleyhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-085A.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-085BIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of mechanical compression full (eg. Lucas) or partial decompression (eg. US version) (I) compared with manual CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Lucas device CPRTaku Iwami, Chika Nishiyamahttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-085B.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-086AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of load distributing band (eg. Autopulse) (I) compared with manual CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Autopulse device CPRPeter T. Morleyhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-086A.pdfALS/BLSALS/BLS-CPR&A-086BIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P), does the use of load distributing band (eg. Autopulse) (I) compared with manual CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O)?Autopulse device CPRDavid G. Beiserhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-BLS-CPR-A-086B.pdfALSALS-CPR&A-004AIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P) including traumatic arrest, does the use of open-chest CPR (I) compared with standard CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O).Open-chest CPRSten Rubertssonhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-CPR-A-004A.pdfALSALS-CPR&A-004BIn adult cardiac arrest (prehospital [OHCA], in-hospital [IHCA]) (P) including traumatic arrest, does the use of open-chest CPR (I) compared with standard CPR (C), improve any outcomes (eg. ROSC, survival) (O).Open-chest CPRMark S. Linkhttp://circ.ahajournals.org/site/C2010/ALS-CPR-A-004B.pdfFootnotesThe American Heart Association requests that this document be cited as follows: Shuster M, Lim SH, Deakin CD, Kleinman ME, Koster RW, Morrison LJ, Nolan JP, Sayre MR; on behalf of the CPR Techniques and Devices Collaborators. Part 7: CPR techniques and devices: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Circulation. 2010;122(suppl 2):S338–S344.*Co-chairs and equal first co-authors.© 2010 American Heart Association, Inc., European Resuscitation Council, and International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.References1. Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, Sorebo H, Svensson L, Fellows B, Steen PA. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2005; 293:299–304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Sack JB, Kesselbrenner MB, Bregman D. Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest with interposed abdominal counterpulsation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. JAMA. 1992; 267:379–385.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Sack JB, Kesselbrenner MB, Jarrad A. Interposed abdominal compression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation and resuscitation outcome during asystole and electromechanical dissociation. Circulation. 1992; 86:1692–1700.LinkGoogle Scholar4. Mateer JR, Stueven HA, Thompson BM, Aprahamian C, Darin JC. Pre-hospital IAC-CPR versus standard CPR: Paramedic resuscitation of cardiac arrests. Am J Emerg Med. 1985; 3:143–146.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Barranco F, Lesmes A, Irles JA, Blasco J, Leal J, Rodriguez J, Leon C. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with simultaneous chest and abdominal compression: Comparative study in humans. Resuscitation. 1990; 20:67–77.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Ward KR, Sullivan RJ, Zelenak RR, A of interposed abdominal compression CPR and standard CPR by Emerg Med. Interposed abdominal CPR in human Emerg Med. Ward KR, HA, of interposed abdominal compression during human cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Emerg Med. of interposed abdominal compression during CPR on arterial and Am J Emerg Med. 1985; A, J, M, J, L, A, J, J, The trial of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital and cardiac arrest. JAMA. A, M. compression-decompression A prospective, randomized study in a EMS with in the Resuscitation. M, M. of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Wik compression-decompression cardiopulmonary A prospective clinical trial in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. C, M. chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Nolan J, M, P. The United study of active compression-decompression resuscitation. Resuscitation. CD, A randomized clinical trial of active compression-decompression CPR standard CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in two JAMA. C. compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not improve survival in patients with cardiac arrest in a emergency J F, B, C, JP, C, C, M, D. of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation as a cardiac A randomized multicenter Circulation. F, J, D. A of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and active compression-decompression resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation J Med. MB, A of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac in the J Med. RJ, of active compression-decompression CPR in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. F, L, compression-decompression on resuscitation success after in-hospital cardiac arrest. J Am trial of the of on cardiac M, The of for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. J, L, chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. and as of during cardiac arrest in a Care Med. 1992; during and open-chest resuscitation in Resuscitation. of open-chest cardiac techniques in Emerg Med. J, Comparative study of of open-chest and direct mechanical Emerg Med.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.