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:BackgroundThe use of mechanical chest compression devices on patients in cardiac arrest has not shown benefits in previous trials. This is surprising, given that these devices can deliver consistently high-quality chest compressions without interruption. It is possible that this discrepancy is due to the no-flow time (NFT) during the application of the device. In this study, we aimed to demonstrate a reduction in no-flow time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with mechanical chest compression devices following 10 min of structured training in novices.Methods270 medical students were recruited for the study. The participants were divided as a convenience sample into two groups. Both groups were instructed in how to use the device according to the manufacturer's specifications. The control group trained in teams of three, according to their own needs, to familiarise themselves with the device. The intervention group received 10 min of structured team training, also in teams of three. The participants then had to go through a CPR scenario in an ad-hoc team of three, in order to evaluate the training effect.ResultsThe median NFT was 26.0 s (IQR: 20.0-30.0) in the intervention group and 37.0 s (IQR: 29.0-42.0) in the control group (p < 0.001). In a follow-up examination of the intervention group four months after the training, the NFT was 34.5 s (IQR: 24.0-45.8). This represented a significant deterioration (p = 0.015) and was at the same level as the control group immediately after training (p = 0.650). The position of the compression stamp did not differ significantly between the groups. Groups that lifted the manikin to position the backboard achieved an NFT of 35.0 s (IQR: 27.5-42.0), compared to 41.0 s (IQR: 36.5-50.5) for the groups that turned the manikin to the side (p = 0.074).ConclusionsThis simulation-based study demonstrated that structured training can significantly reduce the no-flow time when using mechanical resuscitation devices, even in ad-hoc teams. However, this benefit seems to be short-lived: after four months no effect could be detected.
| S-EPMC10895751 | 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: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: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:BackgroundHigh quality chest compressions (CCs) are of crucial importance during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Currently, there are no clear evidences that the use of automatic chest compression devices (ACCD) are superior to manual CCs during out-of-hospital CPR. This study aimed to estimate if availability of ACCDs for two-man rescue teams had any impact on CPR efficiency and a rate of successful transport of patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) to emergency departments.MethodsThe study was designed as a retrospective cohort study. The research tool was the analysis of medical charts of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) in one million agglomeration in Poland in 2018. ACCDs were available for two-man paramedical teams in a half of ambulances and this fact was criterion of group division [ACCD (n=181) and manual CC (MCC) (n=303)]. The following variables such as gender (male/female), age, area of intervention (town/countryside), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) followed by successful transport to hospital were compared between subgroups.ResultsAmong 71,282 interventions in 2018, there were 484 resuscitations undertaken with complete medical data. ROSC and transport to hospital was achieved in 54.9% of individuals, statistically more often among ACCD subjects (63.5%) than those compressed manually (49.8%) (P=0.003). Moreover, the use of ACCD was associated with higher chances of ROSC in younger patients (P=0.027) and if cardiac arrest had place in the town centre (P=0.002).ConclusionsOur observation revealed that the use of ACCD in the pre-hospital emergency care involving two-man rescue teams may increase the prevalence of ROSC among OHCA patients.
| S-EPMC7330409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments.ResultsThere were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01).ConclusionAlthough there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.
| S-EPMC10883626 | 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