Percutaneous Coronary Intervention During Cardiac Arrest and Ongoing Chest Compressions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Resuscitation, 2010
Purpose: Lengthy resuscitations in the catheterisation laboratory carry extremely high rates of mortality because it is essentially impossible to perform effective chest compressions during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS TM , in the catheterisation laboratory, in patients who suffered circulatory arrest requiring prolonged resuscitation. Materials and methods: The study population was comprised of patients who arrived alive to the catheterisation laboratory and then required mechanical chest compression at some time during the angiogram, PCI or pericardiocentesis between 2004 and 2008 at the Lund University Hospital. This is a retrospective registry analysis. Results: During the study period, a total of 3058 patients were treated with PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) of whom 118 were in cardiogenic shock and 81 required defibrillations. LUCAS TM was used in 43 patients (33 STEMI, 7 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 2 elective PCIs and 1 patient with tamponade). Five patients had tamponade due to myocardial rupture prior to PCI that was revealed at the start of the PCI, and all five died. Of the remaining 38 patients, 1 patient underwent a successful pericardiocentesis and 36 were treated with PCI. Eleven of these patients were discharged alive in good neurological condition. Conclusion: The use of mechanical chest compressions in the catheterisation laboratory allows for continued PCI or pericardiocentesis despite ongoing cardiac or circulatory arrest with artificially sustained circulation. It is unlikely that few, if any, of the patients would have survived without the use of mechanical chest compressions in the catheterisation laboratory.
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 2016
Background: Resuscitation after cardiac arrest (CA) in the catheterization laboratory (cath-lab) using mechanical chest compressions (CC) during simultaneous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a strong recommendation in the 2015 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines. This study aimed at re-evaluating survival to hospital discharge and assess long term outcome in this patient population. Methods: Patients presenting at the cath lab with spontaneous circulation, suffering CA and requiring prolonged mechanical CC during cath lab procedures between 2009 and 2013 were included. Circumstances leading to CA, resuscitation parameters and outcomes were evaluated within this cohort. For comparison, patients needing prolonged manual CC in the cath lab in the pre-mechanical CC era were evaluated. Six-month and one year survival with a mechanical CC treatment strategy from 2004 to 2013 was also evaluated. Results: Thirty-two patients were included between 2009 and 2013 (24 ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 4 non-STEMI, 2 planned PCI, 1 angiogram and 1 intra-aortic counter pulsation balloon pump insertion). Twenty were in cardiogenic shock prior to inclusion. Twenty-five were successfully treated with PCI. Median mechanical CC duration for the total cohort (n = 32) was 34 min (range 5-90), for the 15 patients with circulation discharged from the cath-lab, 15 min (range 5-90), and for the eight discharged alive from hospital, 10 min (range 5-52). Twenty-five percent survived with good neurological outcome at hospital discharge. Ten patients treated with manual CC were included with one survivor. Discussion: Eighty-seven percent of the patients included in the mechanical CC cohort had their coronary or cardiac intervention performed during mechanical CC with an 80 % success rate. This shows that the use of mechanical CC during an intervention does not seem to impair the interventional result substantially. The survival rate after one year was 87 %. Conclusions: Among patients suffering CA treated with mechanical CC in the cath-lab, 25 % had a good neurological outcome at hospital discharge compared to 10 % treated with manual CC. Long term survival in patients discharged from hospital is good.
2015
INTRODUCTION. Prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with manual chest compressions (CC) during simultaneous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is exceedingly difficult, with high mortality rates. The use of a mechanical CC (MCC) device can overcome the ordeal of manual CC. The aims of this thesis were to investigate the impact of the introduction of the LUCAS™ MCC device in the cath-lab (Papers I and II); to develop a structured approach in advanced CPR during simultaneous PCI (Paper III); to study myocardial perfusion and blood flow during MCC with and without EPI (Papers IV and V). MATERIAL and METHODS. A retrospective analysis (5 years) and a prospective follow up study (4 years) with patients treated with MCC during simultaneous PCI were performed. Circumstances leading to the cardiac arrest, and patient and PCI outcomes were investigated (Papers I and II). A structured physiology-guided CPR approach during simultaneous PCI was developed (Paper III). In both animal...
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Background: Treating patients in cardiac arrest (CA) with mechanical chest compressions (MCC) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now routine in many coronary catheterization laboratories (cath-lab) and more aggressive treatment modalities, including extracorporeal CPR are becoming more common. The cath-lab setting enables monitoring of vital physiological parameters and other clinical factors that can potentially guide the resuscitation effort. This retrospective analysis attempts to identify such factors associated with ROSC and survival. Methods: In thirty-five patients of which background data, drugs used during the resuscitation and the intervention, PCI result, post ROSC-treatment and physiologic data collected during CPR were compared for prediction of ROSC and survival. Results: Eighteen (51%) patients obtained ROSC and 9 (26%) patients survived with good neurological outcome. There was no difference between groups in regards of background data. Patients arriving in the cath-lab with ongoing resuscitation efforts had lower ROSC rate (22% vs 53%; p = 0.086) and no survivors (0% vs 50%, p = 0.001). CPR time also differentiated resuscitation outcomes (ROSC: 18 min vs No ROSC: 50 min; p = 0.007 and Survivors: 10 min vs No Survivors: 45 min; p = 0.001). Higher arterial diastolic blood pressure was associated with ROSC: 30 mmHg vs No ROSC: 19 mmHg; p = 0.012). Conclusion: Aortic diastolic pressure during CPR is the most predictive physiological parameter of resuscitation success. Ongoing CPR upon arrival at the cath-lab and continued MCC beyond 10-20 min in the cath-lab were both predictive of poor outcomes. These factors can potentially guide decisions regarding escalation and termination of resuscitation efforts.
Cardiac Arrest in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory
Jacc-cardiovascular Interventions, 2019
The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal treatment approach for cardiac arrest (CA) occurring in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. BACKGROUND CA can occur in the cath lab during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. While attempting to correct the precipitating cause of CA, several options are available to maintain vital organ perfusion. These include manual chest compressions, mechanical chest compressions, or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device. METHODS Eighty swine (58 AE 10 kg) were studied. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery was occluded. Ventricular fibrillation (VFCA) was induced and circulatory support was provided with 1 of 4 techniques: either manual chest compressions (frequently interrupted), mechanical chest compressions with a piston device (LUCAS-2), an Impella 2.5 L percutaneously placed LVAD, or the combination of mechanical chest compressions and the percutaneous left ventricular assist device. The study protocol included 12 min of left main coronary occlusion, reperfusion, with defibrillation attempted after 15 min of VFCA. Primary outcome was favorable neurological function (CPC 1 or 2) at 24 h, while secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and hemodynamics. RESULTS Manual chest compressions provided fewer neurologically intact surviving animals than the combination of a mechanical chest compressor and a percutaneous LVAD device (0% vs. 56%; p < 0.01), while no difference was found between the 2 mechanical approaches (28% vs. 35%: p ¼ 0.75). Comparing integrated coronary perfusion pressure showed sequential improvement in hemodynamic support with mechanical devices (401 AE 230 vs. 1,337 AE 905 mm Hg/s; p ¼ 0.06). CONCLUSIONS Combining 2 mechanical devices provided superior 24-h survival with favorable neurological recovery compared with manual compressions during moderate duration VFCA associated with an acute coronary occlusion in the animal catheterization laboratory. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2019;12:1840-9) © 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. M echanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices have improved the consistency and quality of chest compressions but have failed to improve survival when used routinely for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (CA)
Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in in-hospital cardiac arrest
European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2015
Cardiac arrest, though not common during coronary angiography, is increasingly occurring in the catheterization laboratory because of the expanding complexity of percutaneous interventions (PCI) and the patient population being treated. Manual chest compression in the cath lab is not easily performed, often interrupted, and can result in the provider experiencing excessive radiation exposure. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provides unique advantages over manual performance of chest compression for treating cardiac arrest in the cardiac cath lab. Such advantages include the potential for uninterrupted chest compressions, less radiation exposure, better quality chest compressions, and less crowded conditions around the catheterization table, allowing more attention to ongoing PCI efforts during CPR. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients not responding to standard ACLS therapy can be transported to the hospital while mechanical CPR is being performed to provide safe and continuous chest compressions en route. Once at the hospital, advanced circulatory support can be instituted during ongoing mechanical CPR. This article summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology and nature of cardiac arrest in the cardiac cath lab and discusses the mechanics of CPR and defibrillation in that setting. It also reviews the various types of mechanical CPR and their potential roles in and on the way to the laboratory.
2019
The most important goal of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is to provide adequate blood flow to brain and heart by return of spontaneous circulation and this can be performed by chest compressions in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. The most important fact for providing the best circulation is immediate, fast, continuous and high quality chest compression in 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) guideline. Therefore various mechanical chest compression devices are developed recently for more efficient chest compressions and entered the clinical usage. These devices may be considered for use in situations such as prolonged CPR, low number of rescuers, hypothermic cardiac arrest, ambulances in motion, extracorporeal CPR, during angiography which makes it difficult to perform high quality CPR. Apart from these conditions, mechanical chest compression devices should not be preferred to manual chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest cases.
Cardiac arrest has a dire prognosis, with an average of only 5% of patients being discharged alive without neurologic problems after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (1). Despite improvements in medical therapy and other devices modifying ventilatory support (2, 3) cardiopulmonary support based especially on closed chest compression is pivotal to maximize survival chances. However, manual chest compression is energy consuming and operator-intensive. Moreover, it cannot be performed successfully for a prolonged period of time by any individual healthcare provider nor in logistically challenging settings (e.g. helicopters).
Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine
OBJECTIVE: Mechanical chest compression (CC) devices are frequently used in in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings. In this study, mechanical and manual CC in in-hospital cardiac arrest was compared in terms of survival. METHODS: Adult patients who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) for 2 years period and had cardiac arrest in the ED were included in this retrospective, observational study. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 7-day and 30-day survival and hospital discharge data were compared between the two groups of patients who underwent manual CC and those who had mechanical CC with the Lund University Cardiac Assist System-2 device. RESULTS: Although the rate of ROSC in the mechanical CC group was lower than in the manual CC group, this difference was not statistically significant (41.7% vs. 50.4%; P = 0.133). The 7-day survival rate was found to be statistically significantly higher in the mechanical CC group (19.4% vs. 8.9%; P = 0.012). The 30-day survival rate was also found to be high in the mechanical CC group, but this difference was not statistically significant (10.6% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.339). CONCLUSION: In the light of these results, we can say that the use of piston-based mechanical CC devices in ED may be beneficial. More reliable results can be obtained with a prospective study to be performed in the ED.