Mechanical Chest Compression Devices Research Articles

Neurologic outcomes of prehospital mechanical chest compression device use during transportation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a multicenter observational study.

ObjectiveHigh-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation with chest compression is important for good neurologic outcomes during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Several types of mechanical chest compression devices have recently been implemented in Korean emergency medical services. This study aimed to identify the effect of prehospital mechanical chest compression device use on the outcomes of OHCA patients.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data drawn from the regional cardiac arrest registry in Daegu, Korea. This registry prospectively collected data from January 2017 to December 2020. Patients aged 18 years or older who experienced cardiac arrest presumed to have a medical etiology were included. The exposure variable was the use of a prehospital mechanical device during transportation by emergency medical technicians. The outcomes measured were neurologic outcomes and survival to discharge. Logistic regression analysis was used.ResultsAmong 3,230 OHCA patients, 1,111 (34.4%) and 2,119 (65.6%) were managed with manual chest compression and with a mechanical chest compression device, respectively. The mechanical chest compression group showed poorer neurologic outcomes than the manual chest compression group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.04–0.33) and decreased survival to discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–0.82) after adjustment for confounding variables.ConclusionPrehospital mechanical chest compression device use in OHCA was associated with poorer neurologic outcomes and survival to discharge compared to manual chest compression.

Comparison of blood flow between two mechanical compression devices using ultrasound: Animal trial

BackgroundDuring manual chest compression, maintaining accurate compression depth and consistency is a challenge. Therefore, mechanical chest compression devices(mCCDs) have been increasingly incorporated in clinical practice. Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these devices is critical for extensive clinical application. Hence, this study compared the cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) efficiency of two chest compression devices, LUCAS™ 3(Physio-Control, Redmond, USA) and Easy Pulse (Schiller Medizintechnik GMBH, Feldkirchen, Germany), in terms of blood flow using ultrasonography(USG) in a swine model. MethodsA swine model was used to compare two mCCDs, LUCAS™ 3 and Easy Pulse. Cardiac arrest was induced by injecting potassium chloride(KCl) solution in eight male mongrel pigs and the animals were randomly divided into two groups. Mechanical CPR was provided to two groups using LUCAS™ 3(LUCAS™ 3 group) and Easy Pulse(Easy Pulse group). USG was used to measure hemodynamic parameters including femoral peak systolic velocity(PSV) and femoral artery diameters(diameter during systole and diastole). Blood flow rate was calculated by multiplying the PSV and cross-sectional area of the femoral artery during systole. The end-tidal carbon dioxide(EtCo2), chest compression depth was measured. Systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were also measured using an arterial catheter. ResultsThe chest compression depth was much deeper in LUCAS™ 3 group than Easy Pulse group(LUCAS™ 3: 6.80 cm; Easy Pulse: 3.279 cm, p < 0.001). However, EtCo2 was lower in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 19.8 mmHg; Easy Pulse: 33.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). The PSV was higher in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 67.6 cm s−1; Easy Pulse: 55.0 cm s−1, p < 0.001), while the systolic(LUCAS™ 3: 1.5 cm; Easy Pulse: 2.0 cm, p < 0.001) and diastolic diameters were larger in the Easy Pulse group(LUCAS™ 3: 0.4; Easy Pulse: 0.8 cm, p < 0.001). The femoral flood flow rate was also lower in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 32.55 cm3/s; Easy Pulse: 61.35 cm3/s, p < 0.001). ConclusionThe Easy Pulse had a shallower compression depth and slower PSV but had a wider systolic diameter in the femoral artery as compared to that in LUCAS™ 3. Blood flow and EtCo2 were higher in the easy pulse group probably because of the wider diameter. Therefore, an easy pulse may create and maintain more effective intrathoracic pressure.

Back Plate Marking of a Mechanical Chest Compression Device to Reduce the Duration of Chest Compression Interruptions.

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of applying the back plate marking method vs the standard method, to a mechanical chest compression device, in regards to reducing the duration of chest compression interruptions during a simulated cardiac arrest.MethodsAn experimental study, one group pretest posttest design, conducted in a university-based hospital from November 2020 to October 2021. The study recruited 20 participants including emergency medical residents and paramedics. The participants were randomized into three-person teams and applied the device in both standard and back plate marking methods in sequential order. Teams were required to use a mechanical chest compression device in a manikin-based OHCA simulation to assess performance.ResultsThe median time pause for the deployment of the upper part of the device was significantly reduced (16 vs 21s, P < 0.01) in the back plate marking method, as was the total pause for device deployment (31.5 vs 38.75s, P = 0.03) and the proportion of total hands-off time attributable to device application interruption (43.08% vs 49.18%, P = 0.02). There was no difference between groups in the duration of all compression interruptions (70.5 vs 82.75s, P = 0.20) and compression fractions (77.85 vs 76.91%, P = 0.19).ConclusionThe back plate marking method was a significantly reduced time of the deployment of the upper part of the device and in regards to the overall pause for device deployment, but there was no difference in CPR quality between the two methods.

Mechanical chest compression devices under special circumstances

AimAccording to the current resuscitation guidelines, the use of mechanical chest compression devices could be considered under special circumstances like transport with ongoing resuscitation or long-term resuscitation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether survival is improved using mechanical devices under such circumstances. MethodsOut-of-hospital cardiac arrests from all high-quality data centres of the German Resuscitation Registry from 2007 to 2020 were investigated. The use of mechanical devices was compared separately for transport with ongoing resuscitation, prolonged resuscitation (>45 min), and resuscitation with fibrinolytic agents applied. Baseline characteristics, 30-day survival/discharged alive, and neurological function at discharge were analysed descriptively; and 30-day survival/discharged alive was additionally analysed using multivariate logistic regression. ResultsOverall, patients who were treated with a mechanical device tended to be younger and were significantly more likely to have a witnessed cardiac arrest and a shockable initial rhythm. During the study period, 4,851 patients were transported to hospital with ongoing resuscitation (devices used in 44.2%). The 30-day survival was equal (odds ratio, OR: 1.13, 95%-CI: 0.79–1.60). In 3,920 cases, a resuscitation duration > 45 min was documented (9.5% with device). When a device was used, 30-day survival was significantly increased (OR 2.33, 95%-CI: 1.30–4.15). Fibrinolytic agents were used in 2,106 patients (22.2% with device). Here, 30-day survival was significantly worse with a device (OR: 0.52, 95%-CI: 0.30–0.91). ConclusionMechanical devices are not associated with better survival when used during transport, but rescuer safety could still be an important argument for their use. Devices are associated with better survival in prolonged resuscitation, but worse survival when a fibrinolytic was used.

The Viability of Using Remote Controlled Mechanical Chest Compression Devices to Reduce Contamination in Cardiac Arrest Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices play an important role in assisting patients undergoing cardiac arrest. However, this equipment induces an aerosol-generating procedure that could contaminate hospital staff. The development of a remote control system for mechanical chest compression devices may solve the problem; however, there are currently no studies regarding the efficacy of this system. AIM: This study aims to analyze efficacy of remote control systems for mechanical chest compression devices and compare it with non-remote control systems. METHODS: This was an analytical cross-sectional study at Srinagarind Hospital, Thailand. Data were collected in two periods of the study. The first period was between January and December 2021 using a non-remote control system to operate the mechanical chest compression device. The second period was from January to April 2022 and collected data on the use of a remote control system. RESULTS: Sixty-four participants were examined over the 16-month period of the study. A total of 53.1% (n = 34) of participants were male and the mean age of the patients was 52.4 ± 5.1 years old. The number of emergency medical service members (EMS) needed for resuscitation in the remote control group was less than the non-remote control group (3 vs. 5; p = 0.040). The number of emergency department (ED) members needed for resuscitation in the remote control group was four compared with eight in the non-remote control group. CONCLUSIONS: The remote controlled mechanical chest compression device can effectively reduce the number of staff working both in the EMS and in the ED of the hospital, thus reducing exposure and contamination from aerosol-generating procedure. It was also proven accurate in terms of rate and depth of chest compression according to resuscitation guidelines.

Application of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices during Emergency Helicopter Flights

The Article Abstract is not available.

Stab wound or artefact of resuscitation?

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the quintessential response to cardiac arrest and chest compression has remained its primary element. Chest compressions are often associated with resuscitative artefacts, which are often encountered in our forensic pathology setting. Occasionally, some of these artefacts can resemble and be misinterpreted for accidental or homicidal injuries. We present a case of one such resuscitative artefact caused by an automated mechanical chest compression device, which was initially mistaken by the police to be a ‘stab wound’.

Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients.

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.

Effects of Changes in Inspiratory Time on Inspiratory Flowrate and Airway Pressure during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Manikin-Based Study

Objectives Given that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an aerosol-generating procedure, it is necessary to use a mechanical ventilator and reduce the number of providers involved in resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients or suspected COVID-19 patients. However, no study assessed the effect of changes in inspiratory time on flowrate and airway pressure during CPR. We herein aimed to determine changes in these parameters during CPR and identify appropriate ventilator management for adults during CPR. Methods We measured changes in tidal volume (Vt), peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), peak airway pressure (Ppeak), mean airway pressure (Pmean) according to changes in inspiratory time (0.75 s, 1.0 s and 1.5 s) with or without CPR. Vt of 500 mL was supplied (flowrate: 10 times/min) using a mechanical ventilator. Chest compressions were maintained at constant compression depth (53 ± 2 mm) and speed (102 ± 2/min) using a mechanical chest compression device. Results Median levels of respiratory physiological parameters during CPR were significantly different according to the inspiratory time (0.75 s vs. 1.5 s): PIFR (80.8 [73.3 – 87.325] vs. 70.5 [67 – 72.4] L/min, P &amp;lt; 0.001), Ppeak (54 [48 – 59] vs. 47 [45 – 49] cmH 2 O, P &amp;lt; 0.001), and Pmean (3.9 [3.6 – 4.1] vs. 5.7 [5.6 – 5.8] cmH 2 O, P &amp;lt; 0.001). Conclusions Changes in PIFR, Ppeak, and Pmean were associated with inspiratory time. PIFR and Ppeak values tended to decrease with increase in inspiratory time, while Pmean showed a contrasting trend. Increased inspiratory time in low-compliance cardiac arrest patients will help in reducing lung injury during adult CPR.

Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compression: A Retrospective-Cohort in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Objective: In cardiac arrest cases, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and effective chest compression are vital issues in improving survival with good neurological outcomes. In this study, we investigated the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on 30- day survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: This retrospective case-control study was performed on patients who were over 18 years of age and admitted to the emergency department for cardiac arrest between January 1, 2016 and January 15, 2018. Manual chest compression was performed to the patients before January 15, 2017, and mechanical chest compression was performed after this date. Return of spontaneous circulation, hospital discharge, and 30-day survival rates were compared between the groups of patients in terms of chest compression type. In this study, the LUCAS-2 model piston-based mechanical chest compression device was used for mechanical chest compressions.&#x0D; Results: The rate of return of spontaneous circulation was significantly lower in the mechanical chest compression group (11.1% vs 33.1%; p &lt; 0.001). The 30-day survival rate was higher in the manual chest compression group (6.8% vs 3.7%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.542). Furthermore, 30-day survival was 0% in the trauma group and 0.6% in the patient group who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for over 20 minutes.&#x0D; Conclusion: It can be seen that the effect of mechanical chest compression on survival is controversial; studies on this issue should continue and, furthermore, studies on the contribution of mechanical chest compression on labor loss should be conducted.

Cardiac Arrest Occurring in High-Rise Buildings: A Scoping Review.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) occurring in high-rise buildings are a challenge to Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Contemporary EMS guidelines lack specific recommendations for systems and practitioners regarding the approach to these patients. This scoping review aimed to map the body of literature pertaining to OHCAs in high-rise settings in order to clarify concepts and understanding and to identify knowledge gaps. Databases were searched from inception through to 6 May 2021 including OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus. Twenty-three articles were reviewed, comprising 8 manikin trials, 14 observational studies, and 1 mathematical modelling study. High-rise settings commonly have lower availability of bystanders and automatic external defibrillators (AEDs), while height constraints often lead to delays in EMS interventions and suboptimal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), scene access, and extrication. Four studies found return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rates to be significantly poorer, while seven studies found rates of survival-to-hospital discharge (n = 3) and neurologically favourable survival (n = 4) to be significantly lower in multistorey settings. Mechanical chest compression devices, transfer sheets, and strategic defibrillator placement were suggested as approaches to high-rise OHCA management. A shift to maximising on-scene treatment time, along with bundling novel prehospital interventions, could ameliorate some of these difficulties and improve clinical outcomes for patients.

Iatrogenic Injuries in Manual and Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Mechanical chest compression has been shown to be equivalent to manual chest compression in providing survival benefits to patients experiencing cardiac arrest. There has been a growing need for a contemporary review of iatrogenic injuries caused by mechanical in comparison with manual chest compression. Our study aims to analyze the studies that document significant life-threatening iatrogenic injuries caused by mechanical and manual chest compression. A systematic review of PubMed and Embase was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies published after January 1st, 2000 were reviewed using inclusion/exclusion criteria and completed by May 2020. A total of 7202 patients enrolled in 15 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Significant life-threatening iatrogenic injuries had higher odds of occurring when mechanical chest compression was used compared to manual chest compression, especially for hemothorax and liver lacerations. Mechanical chest compression involves consistently deeper compression depths compared to manual chest compression, potentially resulting in more injuries. In the mechanical chest compression cohort, chest wall fractures had the highest incidence rate (55.7%), followed by sternal fracture (28.3%), lung injuries (3.7%), liver (1.0%), and diaphragm (.2%) lacerations. Mechanical chest compression was associated with more iatrogenic injuries as compared to manual chest compression. Further research is needed to define the appropriate application of mechanical in comparison with manual chest compression in different scenarios. Levels of provider training, different mechanical chest compression device types, patient demographics, and compression duration/depth may all play roles in influencing outcomes.

Changing resuscitation strategies during a pandemic: lessons from the consecutive surges in New York and global challenges.

To provide a framework for resuscitation of COVID-19 critical illness for emergency and intensive care clinicians with the most up to date evidence and recommendations in the care of COVID-19 patients in cardiac arrest or in extremis. Performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on COVID-19 patients requires the clinicians to adopt infection mitigation strategies such as full personal protective equipment, mechanical chest compression devices, and restricting the number of people present during the resuscitation. The time of intubation is a subject of ongoing research and clinicians should use their best judgment for each patient. Clinicians should prepare for CPR in prone position. Particular attention should be given to the psychological well-being of the staff. Point of care ultrasound has proved to be an invaluable diagnostic tool in assessing ventricular dysfunction and parenchymal lung disease. Although novel therapies to supplant the function of diseased lungs have shown promise in select patients the evidence is still being collected. The end-of-life discussions have been negatively impacted by prognostic uncertainty as well as barriers to in person meetings with families. The resuscitation of critically ill COVID-19 patients poses new challenges, but the principles remain largely unchanged.

Towards individualised treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: an update on technical innovations in the prehospital chain of survival.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major healthcare problem, with approximately 200 weekly cases in the Netherlands. Its critical, time-dependent nature makes it a unique medical situation, of which outcomes strongly rely on infrastructural factors and on-scene care by emergency medical services (EMS). Survival to hospital discharge is poor, although it has substantially improved, to roughly 25% over the last years. Recognised key factors, such as bystander resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use at the scene, have been markedly optimised with the introduction of technological innovations. In an era with ubiquitous smartphone use, the Dutch digital text message alert platform HartslagNu (www.hartslagnu.nl) increasingly contributes to timely care for OHCA victims. Guidelines emphasise the role of cardiac arrest recognition and early high-quality bystander resuscitation, which calls for education and improved registration at HartslagNu. As for EMS care, new technological developments with future potential are the selective use of mechanical chest compression devices and extracorporeal life support. As a future innovation, ‘smart’ defibrillators are under investigation, guiding resuscitative interventions based on ventricular fibrillation waveform characteristics. Taken together, optimisation of available prehospital technologies is crucial to further improve OHCA outcomes, with particular focus on more available trained volunteers in the first phase and additional research on advanced EMS care in the second phase.

Comparison of volume-controlled, pressure-controlled, and chest compression-induced ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation with an automated mechanical chest compression device: A randomized clinical pilot study

Aim of the studyAutomated mechanical chest compression devices (AMCCDs) can help performing high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Guidelines for CPR are lacking information about the optimal ventilation mode during CPR using AMCCDs. Aim of this pilot study was to compare three common ventilation modes during CPR using AMCCD. MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, we included patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest arriving at the resuscitation room receiving chest compressions via AMCCD with an expected continuation of at least 15 min. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: biphasic positive airway pressure with assisted spontaneous ventilation (BIPAP) with assisted spontaneous breathing, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV). Outcomes were tidal volume, respiratory minute volume, and end-tidal CO2 during the study period. Groups were compared using generalized linear models. Data is given as median and interquartile ranges. ResultsOf 53 screened patients, 30 were randomized. The tidal volume was significantly (p < 0.05) lower in patients of the CPAP group (68 [64–83] ml) compared with those of the BIPAP (349 [137–500] ml), while the respiratory minute volume differed between the CPAP group (6.2 [5.3–8.1] l/min) and both the BIPAP (7.1 [6.7–10.2] l/min) and VCV group (7.2 [3.7–8.4] l/min). ConclusionsAll ventilation modes achieved an adequate respiratory minute volume during CPR with an AMCCD. However, BIPAP seems to be superior due to the higher tidal volume. Therefore, we recommend starting mechanical ventilation when using AMCCD with BIPAP ventilation to avoid risks related to dead space ventilation.

Factors Associated With Rebound Hyperthermia After Targeted Temperature Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients: An Explorative Substudy of the Time-Differentiated Therapeutic Hypothermia in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors Trial

Post hoc analysis. Ten European ICUs. Patients included in the time-differentiated therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors trial treated with targeted temperature management at 33°C for 48 or 24 hours. Favorable functional outcome was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category of 1 or 2 at 6 months. None. Of 338 included patients, 103 (30%) experienced rebound hyperthermia defined as a maximum temperature after targeted temperature management and rewarming exceeding 38.5°C. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, increasing age (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; p = 0.02) and severe acute kidney injury within 72 hours of ICU admission (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; p = 0.03) were associated with less rebound hyperthermia, whereas male gender (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.34-11.57; p = 0.01), highest C-reactive protein value (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07; p = 0.02), and use of mechanical chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.10-3.67; p = 0.02) were associated with more rebound hyperthermia. Patients with favorable functional outcome spent less time after rewarming over 38.5°C (2.5% vs 6.3%; p = 0.03), 39°C (0.14% vs 2.7%; p < 0.01), and 39.5°C (0.03% vs 0.71%; p < 0.01) when compared with others. Median time to rebound hyperthermia was longer in the unfavorable functional outcome group (33.2 hr; interquartile range, 14.3-53.0 hr vs 6.5 hr; interquartile range, 2.2-34.1; p < 0.01). In a predefined multivariate binary logistic regression model, rebound hyperthermia was associated with decreased odds of favorable functional outcome (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79). One-third of targeted temperature management patients experience rebound hyperthermia, and it is more common in younger male patients with an aggravated inflammatory response and those treated with a mechanical chest compression device. Later onset of rebound hyperthermia and temperatures exceeding 38.5°C associate with unfavorable outcome.

Assessment of chest compression interruptions during advanced cardiac life support

AimTo identify potentially avoidable factors responsible for chest compression interruptions and to evaluate the influence of chest compression fraction on achieving return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge. MethodsIn this prospective observational study, each resuscitation managed by mobile medical teams from August 1st, 2016, to August 1st, 2018 was video recorded using a body-mounted GoPro camera. The duration of all chest compression interruptions was recorded and chest compression fraction was calculated. All actions causing an interruption of at least 10 s were analyzed. ResultsTwo hundred and six resuscitations of both in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients were analysed. In total 1867 chest compression interruptions were identified. Of these, 623 were longer than 10 s in which a total of 794 actions were performed. In 4.3% of the registered pauses, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was interrupted for more than 60 s. The most performed actions during prolonged interruptions were rhythm/pulse checks (51.6%), installation/use of mechanical chest compression devices (11.1%), cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider switches (6.7%) and ETT placements (6.2%). No statistically significant relationship was found between chest compression fraction and return of spontaneous circulation or survival. ConclusionThe majority of chest compression interruptions during resuscitation were caused by prolonged rhythm checks, cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider switches, incorrect use of mechanical chest compression devices and ETT placement. No association was found between chest compression fraction and return of spontaneous circulation, nor an influence on survival. This was presumably caused by the high baseline chest compression fraction of >86%.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

IntroductionOur goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000–October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting.ResultsA total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates’ summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance.ConclusionMechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.

Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes in Daegu, South Korea: an observational study.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in a large metropolitan city.MethodsThis before-and-after observational study used a prospective citywide OHCA registry. Adult patients with emergency medical service-treated OHCA, with presumed cardiac etiology, pre- and post-COVID-19 outbreak were enrolled. The study period spanned 2 months, starting from February 18, 2020. The control period was 2 months from February 18, 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were good neurologic outcome and survival to hospital discharge, respectively. The association between the COVID-19 outbreak and OHCA outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis.ResultsThis study analyzed 297 OHCA patients (control period, 145; study period, 152). The bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation rates were 64.8% and 60.5% during the control and study periods, respectively. Response and on-scene times increased by 2 minutes, supraglottic airway use increased by 35.6%, and mechanical chest compression device use increased by 13% post-COVID-19 outbreak. Good neurologic outcome was significantly lower during the study period in overall OHCAs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.98) and in witnessed OHCAs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.90). No significant difference was found in the survival to hospital discharge of OHCA patients between the two periods. ConclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the response and on-scene times were longer, and good neurologic outcome was significantly lower than that in the control period.

Comparison of different mechanical chest compression devices in the alpine rescue setting: a randomized triple crossover experiment

BackgroundCardiopulmonary resuscitation in mountain environment is challenging. Continuous chest compressions during transport or hoist rescue are almost impossible without mechanical chest compression devices. Current evidence is predominantly based on studies conducted by urbane ambulance service. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the feasibility of continuous mechanical chest compression during alpine terrestrial transport using three different devices.MethodsRandomized triple crossover prospective study in an alpine environment. Nineteen teams of the Austrian Mountain Rescue Service trained according to current ERC guidelines performed three runs each of a standardised alpine rescue-scenario, using three different devices for mechanical chest compression. Quality of CPR, hands-off-time and displacement of devices were measured.ResultsThe primary outcome of performed work (defined as number of chest compressions x compression depth) was 66,062 mm (2832) with Corpuls CPR, 65,877 mm (6163) with Physio-Control LUCAS 3 and 40,177 mm (4396) with Schiller Easy Pulse. The difference both between LUCAS 3 and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,700; 95% confidence interval 21,118 – 30,282) and between Corpuls CPR and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,885; 23,590 – 28,181) was significant. No relevant differences were found regarding secondary outcomes.ConclusionMechanical chest compression devices provide a viable option in the alpine setting. For two out of three devices (Corpuls CPR and LUCAS 3) we found adequate quality of CPR. Those devices also maintained a correct placement of the piston even during challenging terrestrial transport. Adequate hands-off-times and correct placement could be achieved even by less trained personnel.