scholarly journals Open-chest versus closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in trauma patients: effect size is probably higher for penetrating injury

Critical Care ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Jouffroy ◽  
Benoît Vivien
1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 237
Author(s):  
J. Alifimoff ◽  
P. Safar ◽  
N. Bircher W. Stezoski ◽  
R. Barbati

Resuscitation ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Badylak ◽  
Karl B. Kern ◽  
Willis A. Tacker ◽  
Gordon A. Ewy ◽  
Wolfgang Janas ◽  
...  

1980 ◽  
Vol 53 (3 Suppl) ◽  
pp. S151-S151 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Alifimoff ◽  
P. Safar ◽  
N. Bircher ◽  
W. Stezoski ◽  
R. Barbati

1980 ◽  
Vol 53 (3 Suppl) ◽  
pp. S147-S147 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. K. Alifimoff ◽  
P. Safar ◽  
N. Bircher ◽  
W. Stezoski ◽  
R. Barbati

Author(s):  
Mao Wang ◽  
Xiaoguang Lu ◽  
Ping Gong ◽  
Yilong Zhong ◽  
Dianbo Gong ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is the most urgent and critical step in the rescue of patients with cardiac arrest. However, only about 10% of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survive to discharge. Surprisingly, there is growing evidence that open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation is superior to closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Meanwhile, The Western Trauma Association and The European Resuscitation Council encouraged thoracotomy in certain circumstances for trauma patients. But whether open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation is superior to closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation remains undetermined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to summarize current studies on open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a systematic review, comparing it to closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation, in a meta-analysis. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the PubMed, EmBase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2019 investigating the effect of open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation and closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with cardiac arrest, without language restrictions. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation. The secondary outcome was survival to discharge. Results Seven observational studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis involving 8548 patients. No comparative randomized clinical trial was reported in the literature. There was no significant difference in return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge between open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation and closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cardiac arrest patients. The odds ratio (OR) were 0.92 (95%CI 0.36–2.31, P > 0.05) and 0.54 (95%CI 0.17–1.78, P > 0.05) for return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge, respectively. Subgroup analysis of cardiac arrest patients with trauma showed that closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation was associated with higher return of spontaneous circulation compared with open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR = 0.59 95%CI 0.37–0.94, P < 0.05). And subgroup analysis of cardiac arrest patients with non-trauma showed that open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation was associated with higher ROSC compared with closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR = 3.12 95%CI 1.23–7.91, P < 0.05). Conclusions In conclusion, for patients with cardiac arrest, we should implement closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation as soon as possible. However, for cardiac arrest patients with chest trauma who cannot perform closed-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation, open-chest cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be implemented as soon as possible.


1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 238
Author(s):  
J. Alifimoff ◽  
P. Safar ◽  
N. Bircher ◽  
W. Stezoski ◽  
R. Barbati

Resuscitation ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman A. Paradisa ◽  
Gerard B. Martin ◽  
Emanuel P. Rivers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document