Manual vs Device-Assisted CPR
Reconciling Apparently Contradictory Results
- Roger J. Lewis, MD, PhD;
- James T. Niemann, MD
- Author Affiliations: Department of Emergency Medicine and Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor-University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance; and Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
- Corresponding Author: Roger J. Lewis, MD, PhD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, 1000 W Carson St, Box 21, Torrance, CA 90509-2910 (roger{at}emedharbor.edu).
Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text.
Out-of-hospital sudden cardiac death is a major health problem. According to Becker et al,1 in summarizing the 2000 Pulse Conference, “We lose more than 1000 lives each day in the United States from sudden, unexpected death, a fatality rate comparable to the crash of two 747 aircraft without survivors.” To make matters worse, current interventions for the treatment of nontraumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, conforming to a “chain of survival” concept, have not significantly improved neurologically intact survival rates over a decade.2-3 The overall survival rate is less than 5% and the chance of normal neurological function is even lower.
The considerations in resuscitation research can be conceptualized using a 3-phase model for resuscitation after cardiac arrest.4 In the first or electrical phase, immediate defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation, if present, is most likely to result in survival. To this end, the development of automated external defibrillators and …
