The Performance of Manual Versus Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During a Simulated Rescue Boat Transport in Cardiac Arrest

Abstract

ObjectiveCatalina Island's Casino Point is a popular scuba diving site and is located 11.6 nautical miles from the University of Southern California Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber. We sought to determine the best method of providing high-performance CPR during a dive emergency, comparing manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with 2 mechanical compression devices during a simulated boat transport. MethodsThis study was performed on a Los Angeles County Lifeguard rescue boat using 3 manikins and comparing 3 arms: 1) manual compressions with 2 rescuers, 2) mechanical CPR with the Autopulse (ZOLL, Chelmsford, MA), and 3) mechanical CPR with the LUCAS III (Stryker, Kalamazoo, WI). CPR data were collected using ZOLL Stat Padz with an accelerometer connected to ZOLL X Series monitor/defibrillators. The manikins were filmed using mounted cameras. Data were reviewed using ZOLL Case Review. ResultsIn video footage, all 3 arms appeared to provide high-performance CPR during the 30-minute transport. The compression fractions for manual CPR, the Autopulse, and the LUCAS were 99.57%, 95.51%, and 98.4%, respectively. Engine noise (94.6-101.3 dB) prevented the manual arm from hearing their audio prompts, and motion caused significant artifact on the accelerometers.Conclusion: High-performance CPR can successfully be performed on a rescue boat by either manual or mechanical methods. Mechanical CPR offered many logistical advantages.