Download PDF
retten! 2019; 8(03): 179-186
DOI: 10.1055/a-0653-8370
Fachwissen
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Mechanische Reanimationshilfen – Stand der Wissenschaft

Domagoj Damjanović
,
Christoph Haberl
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 July 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Mechanische Reanimationshilfen (mCPR) werden anstelle manueller CPR eingesetzt, um eine gleichbleibend stabile Perfusion der vitalen Organe zu gewährleisten. Der Beitrag liefert die wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen zum Einsatz der Geräte und evaluiert die Ergebnisse nach mCPR.
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Olaussen A, Shepherd M, Nehme Z. et al. Return of consciousness during ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review. Resuscitation 2015; 86: 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wik L, Olsen JA, Persse D. et al. Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation 2014; 85: 741-748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D. et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial. JAMA 2014; 311 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282538.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T. et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61886-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bernhard M, Behrens NH, Wnent J. et al. Out-of-hospital airway management during manual compression or automated chest compression devices. Anaesthesist 2018; 67: 109-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Soar J, Nolan JP, Bottiger BW. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2015; 95 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.016.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Seewald S, Obermaier M, Lefering R. et al. Application of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices and their value in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective analysis of the German Resuscitation Registry. PLoS ONE 2019; 14: e0208113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Koster RW, Beenen LF, van der Boom EB. et al. Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority. Eur Heart J 2017; 38 (49) 3006-3013 . Im Internet: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Soar J, Nolan JP, Böttiger BW. et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2015; 95: 100-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ärztlicher Leiter Rettungsdienst Bayern. Empfehlungen. Im Internet: http://www.aelrd-bayern.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265&Itemid=587
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Wengenmayer T, Rombach S, Ramshorn F. et al. Influence of low-flow time on survival after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR). Crit Care 2017; 21: 157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Levy M, Yost D, Walker RG. et al. A quality improvement initiative to optimize use of a mechanical chest compression device within a high-performance CPR approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. Resuscitation 2015; 92: 32-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gässler H, Decken S, Lampl L. et al. Einfluss eines strukturierten Trainings auf den Einsatz von mechanischen Thoraxkompressionsgeräten. Anästh Intensivmed 2019; 60: 104-112 . doi:10.19224/ai2019.104
    Google Scholar