Testing Mechanical Chest Compression Devices of Different Design for Their Suitability for Prehospital Patient Transport - a Simulator-based Study

Overview

Journal BMC Emerg Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Emergency Medicine

Date 2021 Feb 5

PMID 33541280

Citations 3

Authors

Maximilian Jorgens

Jurgen Koniger

Karl-Georg Kanz

Torsten Birkholz

Heiko Hubner

Stephan Pruckner

Bernhard Zwissler

Heiko Trentzsch

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Mechanical chest compression (mCPR) offers advantages during transport under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Little is known how devices of different design perform en-route. Aim of the study was to measure performance of mCPR devices of different construction-design during ground-based pre-hospital transport.

Methods: We tested animax mono (AM), autopulse (AP), corpuls cpr (CC) and LUCAS2 (L2). The route had 6 stages (transport on soft stretcher or gurney involving a stairwell, trips with turntable ladder, rescue basket and ambulance including loading/unloading). Stationary mCPR with the respective device served as control. A four-person team carried an intubated and bag-ventilated mannequin under mCPR to assess device-stability (displacement, pressure point correctness), compliance with 2015 ERC guideline criteria for high-quality chest compressions (frequency, proportion of recommended pressure depth and compression-ventilation ratio) and user satisfaction (by standardized questionnaire).

Results: All devices performed comparable to stationary use. Displacement rates ranged from 83% (AM) to 11% (L2). Two incorrect pressure points occurred over 15,962 compressions (0.013%). Guideline-compliant pressure depth was > 90% in all devices. Electrically powered devices showed constant frequencies while muscle-powered AM showed more variability (median 100/min, interquartile range 9). Although physical effort of AM use was comparable (median 4.0 vs. 4.5 on visual scale up to 10), participants preferred electrical devices.

Conclusion: All devices showed good to very good performance although device-stability, guideline compliance and user satisfaction varied by design. Our results underline the importance to check stability and connection to patient under transport.

Citing Articles

Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in "hostile" environments: Using automated compression devices to minimize the rescuers' danger.

Latsios G, Leopoulou M, Synetos A, Karanasos A, Papanikolaou A, Bounas P World J Cardiol. 2023; 15(2):45-55.

PMID: 36911750 PMC: 9993930. DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v15.i2.45.

Is in situ simulation in emergency medicine safe? A scoping review.

Truchot J, Boucher V, Li W, Martel G, Jouhair E, Raymond-Dufresne E BMJ Open. 2022; 12(7):e059442.

PMID: 36219737 PMC: 9301797. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059442.

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

Han M, Yeo A, Ong M, Smith K, Lim Y, Lin N J Clin Med. 2021; 10(20).

PMID: 34682806 PMC: 8539960. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10204684.

References

Fox J, Fiechter R, Gerstl P, Url A, Wagner H, Luscher T . Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions. Acute Card Care. 2013; 15(1):1-6. DOI: 10.3109/17482941.2012.735675. View

Perkins G, Handley A, Koster R, Castren M, Smyth M, Olasveengen T . [Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation.]. Notf Rett Med. 2020; 18(8):748-769. PMC: 7088113. DOI: 10.1007/s10049-015-0081-1. View

Lyon R, Crawford A, Crookston C, Short S, Clegg G . The combined use of mechanical CPR and a carry sheet to maintain quality resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients during extrication and transport. Resuscitation. 2015; 93:102-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.05.030. View

Olasveengen T, Wik L, Steen P . Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and during transport in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2007; 76(2):185-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.07.001. View

Magliocca A, Olivari D, De Giorgio D, Zani D, Manfredi M, Boccardo A . LUCAS Versus Manual Chest Compression During Ambulance Transport: A Hemodynamic Study in a Porcine Model of Cardiac Arrest. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 8(1):e011189. PMC: 6405722. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011189. View

Odegaard S, Olasveengen T, Steen P, Kramer-Johansen J . The effect of transport on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2009; 80(8):843-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.03.032. View

Bekgoz B, San I, Ergin M . Quality Comparison of the Manual Chest Compression and the Mechanical Chest Compression During Difficult Transport Conditions. J Emerg Med. 2020; 58(3):432-438. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.11.045. View

Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, Rubertsson S . A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011; 82(6):702-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.032. View

Gassler H, Kummerle S, Ventzke M, Lampl L, Helm M . Mechanical chest compression: an alternative in helicopter emergency medical services?. Intern Emerg Med. 2015; 10(6):715-20. DOI: 10.1007/s11739-015-1238-0. View

10.

Fischer M, Breil M, Ihli M, Messelken M, Rauch S, Schewe J . [Mechanical resuscitation assist devices]. Anaesthesist. 2014; 63(3):186-97. DOI: 10.1007/s00101-013-2265-8. View

11.

Ji C, Lall R, Quinn T, Kaye C, Haywood K, Horton J . Post-admission outcomes of participants in the PARAMEDIC trial: A cluster randomised trial of mechanical or manual chest compressions. Resuscitation. 2017; 118:82-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.06.026. View

12.

Sugerman N, Edelson D, Leary M, Weidman E, Herzberg D, Vanden Hoek T . Rescuer fatigue during actual in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with audiovisual feedback: a prospective multicenter study. Resuscitation. 2009; 80(9):981-4. PMC: 2746377. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.06.002. View

13.

Drinhaus H, Nusgen S, Adams N, Wetsch W, Annecke T . Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020; 28(1):16. PMC: 7055089. DOI: 10.1186/s13049-020-0709-0. View

14.

Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmermann A, Pedross F, Strapazzon G, Brugger H . LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study. Am J Emerg Med. 2012; 31(2):384-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.018. View

15.

Gates S, Quinn T, Deakin C, Blair L, Couper K, Perkins G . Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2015; 94:91-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.002. View

16.

Sunde K, Wik L, Steen P . Quality of mechanical, manual standard and active compression-decompression CPR on the arrest site and during transport in a manikin model. Resuscitation. 1997; 34(3):235-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9572(96)01087-8. View

17.

Perkins G, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin C, Cooke M, Horton J . Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014; 385(9972):947-55. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61886-9. View

18.

Slattery D, Silver A . The hazards of providing care in emergency vehicles: an opportunity for reform. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009; 13(3):388-97. DOI: 10.1080/10903120802706104. View

19.

Gassler H, Ventzke M, Lampl L, Helm M . Transport with ongoing resuscitation: a comparison between manual and mechanical compression. Emerg Med J. 2012; 30(7):589-92. DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201142. View