Dataset Information

Evaluation of abdominal compression–decompression combined with chest compression CPR performed by a new device: Is the prognosis improved after this combination CPR technique?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study was designed to compare the outcomes of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STD-CPR) and combined chest compression and abdominal compression–decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CO-CPR) with a new device following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Moreover, we investigated whether patient prognosis improved with this combination treatment.

Methods

This trial was a single-centre, prospective, randomized trial, and a blinded assessment of the outcomes was performed. A total of 297 consecutive patients with OHCA were initially screened, and 278 were randomized to the STD-CPR group (n = 135) or the CO-CPR group (n = 143). We compared the proportions of patients who achieved a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survived to hospital admission and survived to hospital discharge. In addition, we also performed the Kaplan–Meier analysis with a log-rank test at the end of the follow-up period to compare the survival curves of the two groups.

Results

The differences were not statistically significant in the proportion of patients who achieved ROSC [31/135 (23.0%) versus 35/143 (24.5%)] and survived to hospital admission [28/135 (20.7%) versus 33/143 (23.1%)] between the CO-CPR group and STD-CPR group. However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived to hospital discharge [16/135 (11.9%) versus 7/143 (4.9%)] between the two groups. Nine patients (6.7%) in the CO-CPR group and 2 patients (1.4%) in the STD group showed good neurological outcomes according to the cerebral performance category (CPC) scale score, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003). The Kaplan–Meier curves showed that the patients in the CO-CPR group achieved better survival benefits than those in the STD-CPR group at the end of the follow-up period (log-rank P = 0.007).

Conclusion

CO-CPR was more beneficial than STD-CPR in terms of survival benefits in patients who have suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registered number: ChiCTR2100049581. Registered 30 July 2021- Retrospectively registered. http://www.medresman.org.cn/uc/index.aspx.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-022-01036-y.

SUBMITTER: Li H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9375386 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecently, we developed a chest compression device that can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR and be remotely controlled to minimize rescuer exposure to infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare its performance with conventional mechanical CPR device in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.Materials and methodsA prototype of a remote-controlled automatic chest compression device (ROSCER) that can change the chest compression position without interruption during CPR was developed, and its performance was compared with LUCAS 3 in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, 16 male pigs were randomly assigned into the two groups, ROSCER CPR (n = 8) and LUCAS 3 CPR (n = 8), respectively. During 5 minutes of CPR, hemodynamic parameters including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, common carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure were measured.ResultsIn the compression performance test using a mannequin, compression depth, compression time, decompression time, and plateau time were almost equal between ROSCER and LUCAS 3. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, coronary perfusion pressure showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.409). Systolic aortic pressure and carotid blood flow were higher in the LUCAS 3 group than in the ROSCER group during 5 minutes of CPR (p < 0.001, p = 0.008, respectively). End-tidal CO2 level of the ROSCER group was initially lower than that of the LUCAS 3 group, but was higher over time (p = 0.022). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for ROSC also showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.46).ConclusionThe prototype of a remote-controlled automated chest compression device can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR. In a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest, the device showed no inferior performance to a conventional mechanical CPR device.

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.