Differences between manual CPR and corpuls cpr in regard to quality and outcome: study protocol of the comparing observational multi\u2010center prospective registry study on resuscitation (COMPRESS)

S Seewald,R Lefering,J Wnent,M Heller,B Jakisch,S Dopfer,Jt Gräsner

doi:10.1186/s13049-021-00855-9

Abstract

BackgroundThe effect of mechanical CPR is diversely described in the literature. Different mechanical CPR devices are available. The corpuls cpr is a new generation of piston-driven devices and was launched in 2015. The COMPRESS-trial analyzes quality of chest compression and CPR-related injuries in cases of mechanical CPR by the corpuls cpr and manual CPR.MethodsThis article describes the design and study protocol of the COMPRESS-trial. This observational multi-center study includes all patients who suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) where CPR is attempted in four German emergency medical systems (EMS) between January 2020 and December 2022. EMS treatment, in-hospital-treatment and outcome are anonymously reported to the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR). This information is linked with data from the defibrillator, the feedback system and the mechanical CPR device for a complete dataset.Primary endpoint is chest compression quality (complete release, compression rate, compression depth, chest compression fraction, CPR-related injuries). Secondary endpoint is survival (return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), admission to hospital and survival to hospital discharge). The trial is sponsored by GS Elektromedizinische Geräte G. Stemple GmbH.DiscussionThis observational multi-center study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression devices and to the efficacy and safety of the corpuls cpr.Trial registrationDRKS, DRKS-ID DRKS00020819. Registered 31 July 2020.

Highlights

The effect of mechanical Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is diversely described in the literature
Stemple GmbH); previous experience in the use of the corpuls cpr; the corpuls cpr is available at the physician staffed unit; participation in the German Resuscitation Registry including collection of in-hospital outcome data; they are not participating in a clinical study that would be in conflict with the COMPRESS-trial
If manual CPR is used, a feedback system is recommended

Summary

Introduction

The effect of mechanical CPR is diversely described in the literature. Different mechanical CPR devices are available. The corpuls cpr is a new generation of piston-driven devices and was launched in 2015. The COMPRESS-trial analyzes quality of chest compression and CPR-related injuries in cases of mechanical CPR by the corpuls cpr and manual CPR. With manual CPR, increasing fatigue of rescuers and frequent interruptions of compressions have been reported [2]. Both fatigue and interruptions decrease chest compression quality and the generated blood flow. Several mechanical CPR devices with different compression methods have been developed. These devices perform chest compressions through inflatable vests, mechanical pistons or load distributing bands. The most frequently used devices are LUCAS (piston-driven) (manufactured by Stryker Medical) and AutoPulse (load distributing band) (manufactured by ZOLL medical)

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion