한빛사논문
- 조회372
Jonghwan Shin MD, PhD a,b, Hui Jai Lee MD, PhD b, Kwang Nam Jin MD, PhD c, Jung Ho Shin MD, PhD b, Kyoung Min You MD, PhD b, Stephen Gyung Won Lee MD b, Jin Hee Jung MD, PhD b, Kyoung Jun Song MD, PhD a,b, Jieun Pak MD, MD b, Tae Yun Park MD d, Chang Je Park b, Gi Tak Bae RN e
aDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea
bDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Seoul Metropolitan Government Boramae Medical Center, 20, Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea
cDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Seoul Metropolitan Government Boramae Medical Center, 20, Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea
dDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Seoul Metropolitan Government Boramae Medical Center, 20, Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea
eDepartment of Nursing, Seoul National University Seoul Metropolitan Government Boramae Medical Center, 20, Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 07061, Republic of Korea
Corresponding authors: Hui Jai Lee, Kwang Nam Jin
Abstract
Background: There is insufficient evidence supporting that mechanical ventilation can replace the manual ventilation method during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Research question: Is using automatic mechanical ventilation feasible and comparable to the manual ventilation method during CPR?
Study design and methods: This is a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing automatic mechanical ventilator (MV) and manual bag ventilation (BV) during CPR of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Patients with medical OHCA arriving at the emergency department were randomly assigned to two groups: an MV group using a mechanical ventilator and a BV group using Ambu-bag. Primary outcome was any return-of-spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were changes of arterial blood gas analysis results during CPR. Tidal volume, minute volume, and peak airway pressure were also analyzed.
Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled and 30 patients were randomly assigned to each group. There were no statistically significant differences in basic characteristics of OHCA patients between the two groups. The rate of any ROSC was 56.7% in the MV group and 43.3% in the BV group, showing no significant (p = 0.439) difference between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in changes of PH, PCO2, PO2, HCO3, or lactate level during CPR between the two groups either (p-value: 0.798, 0.249, 0.515, 0.876. and 0.878, respectively). Significantly lower TV (p < 0.001) and minute volume (p = 0.009) were found in the MV group.
Interpretation: In this pilot trial, the use of MV instead of BV during CPR was feasible and could serve as a viable alternative. A multicenter RCT is needed to create sufficient evidence for ventilation guideline during CPR.
논문정보
- Research article
- 2024년 02월 (BRIC 등록일 2024-02-23)
- 국내 연구진
- 의약학 > 응용의학
댓글 작성 로그인
팝업 닫기관련 링크
연구자 키워드
연구자 ID
관련분야 연구자보기
소속기관 논문보기
관련분야 논문보기
