Trauma associated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation based on autopsy reports after the 2015 ERC guidelines
J Karasek,A Blankova,A Doubková,T Pitasova,D Nahalka,T Bartes,J Hladik,T Adamek,M Strycek,T Jirasek,R Polasek,P Ostadal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.034
Abstract:Introduction: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)-related injuries have not been assessed since the 2015 Resuscitation Guidelines were established. Aim: To describe the incidence and severity of CPR-related injuries, and to evaluate the impact of the 2015 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines on the objective assessment of injuries. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study analyzed autopsy reports of patients who underwent CPR. The most severe injuries were objectively assessed using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and all injuries were summarized according to the New Injury Severity Score (NISS). Results: Among 628 autopsy reports analyzed, patient characteristics and case details were distributed as follows: male sex, 71.1%; median age, 67 years; out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 89.2%; bystander CPR, 56.8%. CPR-related injuries included: rib(s) 94.6%; lung(s), 9.9%; sternum, 62.4%; liver, 2.5%; and spleen, 1.8%. The incidence of bystander-provided CPR and severity of injury were similar to CPR provided only by professionals. There were no difference between mechanical and manual compressions. Females were older (p = 0.0001) and, although the frequency of their injuries was similar to males, they were significantly more severe (p = 0.01). Patients with life-threatening injury exhibited a baseline profile similar to those without injury . The median score (according to AIS) of the most severe injury was 3 and the median of summary of injuries was 13 according to the NISS-low risk of fatal injury. Conclusion: CPR-related injuries occurred frequently, although those that were life-threatening accounted for only 3% of cases. There were no differences between patients who were resuscitated by bystander(s) or by professionals and no differences between mechanical chest devices or manual resuscitation. Compared with a study based on the 2010 guidelines, similar injuries were found, but with more rib fractures, less visceral organ damage, and fewer life-threatening injuries.