Complications of mechanical chest compression devices.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Platenkamp M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4160457 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Over the past years, several emergency medical service providers have introduced mechanical chest compression devices (MCDs) in their protocols for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Especially in helicopter emergency medical systems (HEMS), which have limitations regarding loading weight and space and typically operate in rural and remote areas, whether MCDs have benefits for patients is still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of MCDs in a large Swiss HEMS system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a retrospective observational study of all HEMS missions of Swiss Air rescue Rega between January 2014 and June 2016 with the use of an MCD (Autopulse®). Details of MCD use and patient outcome are reported from the medical operation journals and the hospitals' discharge letters. RESULTS:MCDs were used in 626 HEMS missions, and 590 patients (94%) could be included. 478 (81%) were primary missions and 112 (19%) were interhospital transfers. Forty-nine of the patients in primary missions were loaded under ongoing CPR with MCDs. Of the patients loaded after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 20 (7%) experienced a second CA during the flight. In interhospital transfers, 102 (91%) only needed standby use of the MCD. Five (5%) patients were loaded into the helicopter with ongoing CPR. Five (5%) patients went into CA during flight and the MCD had to be activated. A shockable cardiac arrhythmia was the only factor significantly associated with better survival in resuscitation missions using MCD (OR 0.176, 95% confidence interval 0.084 to 0.372, p?<?0.001). CONCLUSION:We conclude that equipping HEMS with MCDs may be beneficial, with non-trauma patients potentially benefitting more than trauma patients.
| S-EPMC7381862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries.ObjectivesTo compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs.Study designProspective randomised trial.AnimalsEighteen male German landrace pigs.MethodsVentricular fibrillation was induced in anaesthetised and instrumented pigs and the animals were randomised into two intervention groups. Mechanical CPR was initiated by means of LUCAS™ 2 (mCCD1) or Corpuls™ cpr (mCCD2) device. Advanced life support was applied for a maximum of 10 cycles and animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 8 h. Ventilation/perfusion measurements were performed and blood gas analyses were taken. Thoracic injuries were assessed via a standardised damage score.ResultsFive animals of the mCCD1 group and one animal of the mCCD2 group achieved ROSC (p = 0.048). Only the mCCD1 animals survived until the end of the monitoring period (p < 0.01). MCCD1 animals showed less pulmonary shunt (p = 0.025) and higher normal V/Q (p = 0.017) during CPR. MCCD2 animals showed significantly more severe thoracic injuries (p = 0.046).ConclusionThe LUCAS 2 device shows superior resuscitation outcomes and less thoracic injuries compared to Corpuls cpr when used for experimental CPR in juvenile pigs. Researchers should be aware that different mCCDs for experimental studies may significantly influence the respective outcome of resuscitation studies and affect comparability of different trials. Controlled human and animal CPR studies and a standardised post-resuscitation injury evaluation could help to confirm potential hazards.Trial registrationTrial approval number: G16-1-042-E4.
| S-EPMC8179713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsMechanical chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with AutoPulse or LUCAS devices has not improved survival from cardiac arrest. Cohort studies suggest risk of excess damage. We studied safety of mechanical CC and determined possible excess damage compared with manual CC.Methods and resultsThis is a randomized non-inferiority safety study. Randomization to AutoPulse, LUCAS, or manual CC with corrective depth and rate feedback was performed. We included patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest arriving with manual CPR at the emergency department. The primary outcome was serious or life-threatening visceral resuscitation-related damage, assessed blind by post-mortem computed tomography scan and/or autopsy or by clinical course until discharge. Non-inferiority hypothesis: mechanical CC compared with manual control does not increase the primary outcome by a risk difference of > 10% [upper 95% confidence interval (CI)]. We included 115 patients treated with AutoPulse, 122 with LUCAS, and 137 patients received manual CC. Safety outcome analysis was possible in 337 of 374 (90.1%) included patients. The primary outcome was observed in 12 of 103 AutoPulse patients (11.6%), 8 of 108 LUCAS patients (7.4%), and 8 of 126 controls (6.4%). Rate difference AutoPulse-control: +5.3% (95% CI - 2.2% to 12.8%), P = 0.15. Rate difference LUCAS-control +1.0% (95% CI - 5.5% to 7.6%), P = 0.75.ConclusionLUCAS does not cause significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC. For AutoPulse, significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC cannot be excluded.
| S-EPMC5837501 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8328162 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to investigate the prognostic difference between AUTOPULSE and LUCAS for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) adult patients.A retrospective observational study was performed nationwide. Adult OHCA patients after receiving in-hospital mechanical chest compression from 2012 to 2016 were included. The primary outcomes were sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) of more than 20 minutes and survival to discharge.Among 142,906 OHCA patients, 820 patients were finally included. In multivariate analysis, female (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99), witnessed arrest (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.20-3.69), and arrest cause of non-cardiac origin (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.62) were significantly associated with the increase in ROSC. LUCAS showed a lower survival than AUTOPULSE (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.84), although it showed no significant association with ROSC. Percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.53-25.95) and target temperature management (TTM; OR, 7.30; 95% CI, 2.27-23.49) were the independent factors for survival. We categorized mechanical CPR recipients by witness to compare prognostic effectiveness of AUTOPULSE and LUCAS. In the witnessed subgroup, female (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.89) was a prognostic factor for ROSC and shockable rhythm (OR, 5.04; 95% CI, 1.00-25.30), percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 12.42; 95% CI, 2.04-75.53), and TTM (OR, 9.03; 95% CI, 1.86-43.78) for survival. In the unwitnessed subgroup, no prognostic factors were found for ROSC, and TTM (OR, 99.00; 95% CI, 8.9-1100.62) was found to be an independent factor for survival. LUCAS showed no significant increase in ROSC or survival in comparison with AUTOPULSE in both subgroups.The in-hospital use of LUCAS may have a deleterious effect for survival compared with AUTOPULSE.
| S-EPMC6855519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mechanical complications of ventricular assist devices (VADs) are rare but serious. The authors describe two cases of different mechanical complications of VADs that can affect the mitral valve. Attention should be paid to the position of the inflow/outflow cannula after off-loading of the ventricle, especially in acute heart failure and normal atrial dimensions. Complete off-loading of the left ventricle in the presence of a bioprosthetic mitral valve might cause fusion of the valve leaflets leading to mitral stenosis, which will call for another intervention.
| S-EPMC4176072 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device. DESIGN:Randomised controlled manikin trial. SETTING:Large teaching hospital in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training. INTERVENTIONS:Teams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1?h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario. RESULTS:In relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79)?vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference -0.01 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS:Pit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN43049287; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC5879816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimWe explored the potential for over-compression from current paediatric chest compression depth guidelines using chest computed tomography(CT) images of a large, heterogenous, Asian population.MethodsA retrospective review of consecutive children, less than 18-years old, with chest CT images performed between from 2005 to 2017 was done. Demographic data were extracted from the electronic medical records. Measurements for internal and external anterior-posterior diameters (APD) were taken at lower half of the sternum. Simulated chest compressions were performed to evaluate the proportion of the population with residual internal cavity dimensions less than 0 mm (RICD < 0 mm, representing definite over-compression; with chest compression depth exceeding internal APD), and RICD less than 10 mm (RICD < 10 mm, representing potential over-compression).Results592 paediatric chest CT studies were included for the study. Simulated chest compressions of one-third external APD had the least potential for over-compression; no infants and 0.3% children had potential over-compression (RICD < 10 mm). 4 cm simulated chest compressions led to 18% (95% CI 13%-24%) of infants with potential over-compression, and this increased to 34% (95% CI 27%-41%) at 4.4 cm (upper limit of "approximately" 4 cm; 4 cm + 10%). 5 cm simulated compressions resulted in 8% (95% CI 4%-12%) of children 1 to 8-years-old with potential over-compression, and this increased to 22% (95% CI 16%-28%) at 5.5 cm (upper limit of "approximately" 5 cm, 5 cm + 10%).ConclusionIn settings whereby chest compression depths can be accurately measured, compressions at the current recommended chest compression of approximately 4 cm (in infants) and 5 cm (in young children) could result in potential for over-compression.
| S-EPMC8244421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current report describes a case of stomach perforation, a rare but serious complication, that occurred during cardiopulmonary resuscitation following severe cibenzoline intoxication.Case presentationA woman aged in her 30s was brought into our hospital while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation for pulseless electrical activity. After starting extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), her abdominal X-ray examination revealed free air in her abdomen. She was diagnosed with internal gastric perforation. An emergency operation was carried out while the circulation was maintained using ECMO. As the patient's blood cibenzoline concentration on admission was 3,868 ng/mL, she was diagnosed with cibenzoline intoxication caused by the self-intake of twice the prescribed dose. She was successfully weaned off ECMO and discharged alive with full recovery.ConclusionWe successfully treated a case of gastric perforation after pulseless electrical activity requiring ECMO support due to cibenzoline intoxication. Abdominal surgery can be carried out even if ECMO support is needed.
| S-EPMC7838248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We discovered mechanical compression is able to bring activated MuSCs back to their quiescent stem cell state.
2022-02-06 | GSE196101 | GEO