Manual versus automatic chest compression devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation under zero gravity (The MACCC - 0G STUDY)

Abstract

IntroductionCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in microgravity requires specific methods to counteract weightlessness. Automatic chest compression devices (ACCDs) could improve CPR in microgravity. We aimed to compare ACCDs versus manual CPR in microgravity simulated through parabolic flights. MethodsThis prospective, open, controlled study compared 3 ACCDs (LUCAS 3©, AUTOPULSE©, EASYPULSE©) to manual CPR during the 66th CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) parabolic flights campaign onboard the Novespace Air Zero-G A310 aircraft. Chest compression depths and rates were monitored by a Laerdal© Resusci-Ann-QCPR manikin. ResultsThe LUCAS 3© device had a median compression depth of 53.0 [53.0–54.0] mm, significantly higher than the EASYPULSE©, AUTOPULSE©, and Manual CPR (Handstand method), measured at 29.0 [26.0–32.0] mm, 29.0 [27.5–30.7] mm and 34.5 [29.6–43.3] mm, respectively (p value < 0.001). Compression rates were 101 [101–101], 100 [100–100] and 80 [80–80] compressions per minute (cpm) for the LUCAS 3©, EASYPULSE©, and AUTOPULSE©, respectively. Manual CPR provided a significantly higher compression rate with 115 [109–123] cpm (p value < 0.001). ConclusionOnly LUCAS 3© provided effective CPR according to international guidelines. ACCDs should implement microgravity CPR algorithms.