Dataset Information

Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mechanical 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.

Objectives

To compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs.

Study design

Prospective randomised trial.

Animals

Eighteen male German landrace pigs.

Methods

Ventricular 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.

Results

Five 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).

Conclusion

The 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 registration

Trial approval number: G16-1-042-E4.

SUBMITTER: Ruemmler R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8179713 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe two-thumb encircling technique (2TT) is superior to the two-finger technique (2FT) in infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but there are difficulties in providing ventilation as soon as possible. We modified the 2TT to the cross-thumb technique (CTT) to maintain good CPR performance at the same position as 2FT. We aimed to compare the quality of chest compression and brief hands-off times in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT by a single rescuer using an infant CPR manikin model.MethodsThis study was designed as a prospective randomized controlled simulation-based study. We used the Resusci® Baby QCPR (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) as a simulated 3-month-old infant. Ventilation was performed by the mouth-to-mouth technique using a chest compression-to-ventilation ratio of 30:2 as a single rescuer. Data on CPR quality, such as locations, rates, depth and release of chest compressions, hands-off times, and proper ventilation, were recorded using the Resusci® Baby QCPR and SkillReporter. Also, the chest compression fraction (CCF) was automatically calculated.ResultsThe depth of chest compression in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 40.0 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 39.0, 41.0), 42.0 mm (IQR 41.0, 43.0), and 42.0 mm (IQR 41.0, 43.0), respectively. The depth of chest compression in 2FT was shallower than that in the other two techniques (P<0.05). CCF in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 73.9% (IQR 72.2, 75.6), 71.2% (IQR 67.2, 72.2) and 71.3% (IQR 67.7, 74.1), respectively. CCF was higher in 2FT than in the other two techniques (P<0.05). Correct location in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 99.0% (IQR 86.0, 100.0), 100.0% (IQR 97.0, 100.0) and 100.0% (IQR 99.0, 100.0), respectively. Correct location in CTT and 2TT was higher than that in 2FT. Performing CTT, the subjective pain and fatigue score were lower than other two technique.ConclusionA new chest compression technique, CTT was better in chest compression depth compared with 2FT and may be helpful in maintaining correct chest compression location with less pain and fatigue in infant CPR.

Project description:New chest compression detection technology allows for the recording and graphical depiction of clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions. The authors sought to determine the inter-rater reliability of chest compression pattern classifications by human raters. Agreement with automated chest compression classification was also evaluated by computer analysis.This was an analysis of chest compression patterns from cardiac arrest patients enrolled in the ongoing Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Continuous Chest Compressions Trial. Thirty CPR process files from patients in the trial were selected. Using written guidelines, research coordinators from each of eight participating ROC sites classified each chest compression pattern as 30:2 chest compressions, continuous chest compressions (CCC), or indeterminate. A computer algorithm for automated chest compression classification was also developed for each case. Inter-rater agreement between manual classifications was tested using Fleiss's kappa. The criterion standard was defined as the classification assigned by the majority of manual raters. Agreement between the automated classification and the criterion standard manual classifications was also tested.The majority of the eight raters classified 12 chest compression patterns as 30:2, 12 as CCC, and six as indeterminate. Inter-rater agreement between manual classifications of chest compression patterns was ? = 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.74). The automated computer algorithm classified chest compression patterns as 30:2 (n = 15), CCC (n = 12), and indeterminate (n = 3). Agreement between automated and criterion standard manual classifications was ? = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.95).In this study, good inter-rater agreement in the manual classification of CPR chest compression patterns was observed. Automated classification showed strong agreement with human ratings. These observations support the consistency of manual CPR pattern classification as well as the use of automated approaches to chest compression pattern analysis.