Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

Peter L Wang,Steven C Brooks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub4

IF: 8.4

2019-10-03

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Muhammad Omar Larik,Ayesha Ahmed,Moeez Ibrahim Shiraz,Seemin Afshan Shiraz,Muhammad Umair Anjum,Pratik Bhattarai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000037294

IF: 1.6

2024-02-25

Medicine

Abstract:Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospects of survival. It affects more than 356,000 people annually in the United States, with an undesirable survival rate of approximately 10%. [ 1 ] Providing immediate and efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can double or triple the likelihood of surviving an OHCA by providing temporary circulation to vital organs. Inefficient compressions and insufficient decompressions lead to decreased CPR efficiency. This directly affects the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and long-term outcomes such as survival. [ 2 , 3 ] Studies have debated whether the utilization of manual CPR increases the likelihood of survival as opposed to mechanical CPR. [ 4 , 5 ] There are various approved devices on the market, namely "AutoPulse" and "Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System" (LUCAS), with a large number of studies performed comparing the efficacy of such devices. On account of the number of studies available, the conflicting results of such studies raise hesitancy and reluctance with respect to the superiority of either manual or mechanical chest compression.

medicine, general & internal
Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Is Better Than Manual CPR? Literature Study

Sapondra Wijaya,Susmini Susmini,Bambang Soewito,Wahyu Dwi Ari Wibowo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.38040/js.v16i1.946

2024-04-30

Abstract:Introduction: Mechanical CPR mitigate rescuer fatigue and ensure adherence to guidelines, potentially enhancing overall survival rates. Contrarily, manual CPR relies on human skill, presenting challenges in maintaining uniformity and endurance. Unveiling the complexities within this juxtaposition becomes imperative in shaping future resuscitative paradigms. The purposeof studi is to determine the effectiveness of mechanical CPR in cardiac arrest management compared to manual CPRMethods: Database used were Pubmed and Proquest using the keywords "Mechanical CPR", "Automatic CPR Device" and "Cardiac Arrest". The inclusion criteria were last 5 years published, analyzing the effect of automatic CPR devices on cardiac arrest management, as well as full text articles. The inclusion criteria are literature review, systematic review or is not original research. The number of articles eligible for review is 10 journal articlesResults: The use of automatic CPR equipment is still inferior compared to manual CPR during cardiac arrest with the use value being 4-5% of all cardiac arrest patients. There are 4 journals that state that ROSC in cardiac arrest management using automatic CPR devices is higher than manual, but there are 2 journal articles that report the opposite. Automatic CPR device is very vulnerable to injury with fractures reaching 85.5% of total injuries compared to manual CPR which does not experience injury.Conclusion: The use of automatic CPR device does not produce better results than manual CPR overall for ROSC, but is very useful and meaningful in certain conditions such as during the transportation process, therefore, the automatic CPR device is more meaningful for pre-hospital useKeywords: Manual CPR; Mechanical CPR; CPR; OHCA
Safety of mechanical and manual chest compressions in cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yanxia Gao,Tongwen Sun,Ding Yuan,Huoyan Liang,Youdong Wan,Bo Yuan,Changju Zhu,Yi Li,Yanwu Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.10.028

IF: 6.251

2021-12-01

Resuscitation

Abstract:AIM: Summarise the evidence regarding the safety of mechanical and manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest patients.METHODS: Two investigators separately screened the articles of EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central databases. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety of mechanical (LUCAS or AutoPulse) and manual chest compressions in cardiac arrest patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was the rate of overall compression-induced injuries. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of life-threatening injuries, skeletal fractures, visceral injuries, and other soft tissue injuries.RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 11 trials involving 2,818 patients. A significantly higher rate of overall compression-induced injuries was found for mechanical compressions than manual compressions (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.19-1.41), while there was no significant difference between the two groups in respect of the rate of life-threatening injuries. Furthermore, both modalities shared similar incidences of sternal fractures, vertebral fractures, lung, spleen, and kidney injuries. However, compared to mechanical compressions, manual compressions were shown to present a reduced risk of posterior rib fractures, and heart and liver lesions.CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggested that manual compressions could decrease the risk of compression-induced injuries compared to mechanical compressions in cardiac arrest patients. Interestingly, mechanical compressions have not increased the risk of life-threatening injuries, whereas additional high-quality RCTs are needed to further verify the safety of mechanical chest devices.TRIAL REGISTRY: INPLASY; Registration number: INPLASY2020110111; URL: https://inplasy.com/.

emergency medicine,critical care medicine
Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compression: A Retrospective-Cohort in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Alp Şener,Gül Pamukçu Günaydın,Fatih Tanrıverdi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32552/2021.actamedica.657

2021-11-19

Acta Medica

Abstract:Objective: In cardiac arrest cases, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and effective chest compression are vital issues in improving survival with good neurological outcomes. In this study, we investigated the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on 30- day survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case-control study was performed on patients who were over 18 years of age and admitted to the emergency department for cardiac arrest between January 1, 2016 and January 15, 2018. Manual chest compression was performed to the patients before January 15, 2017, and mechanical chest compression was performed after this date. Return of spontaneous circulation, hospital discharge, and 30-day survival rates were compared between the groups of patients in terms of chest compression type. In this study, the LUCAS-2 model piston-based mechanical chest compression device was used for mechanical chest compressions. Results: The rate of return of spontaneous circulation was significantly lower in the mechanical chest compression group (11.1% vs 33.1%; p < 0.001). The 30-day survival rate was higher in the manual chest compression group (6.8% vs 3.7%); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.542). Furthermore, 30-day survival was 0% in the trauma group and 0.6% in the patient group who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for over 20 minutes. Conclusion: It can be seen that the effect of mechanical chest compression on survival is controversial; studies on this issue should continue and, furthermore, studies on the contribution of mechanical chest compression on labor loss should be conducted.
The Discussion of Several Problems about Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Cardiac Arrest

张孝钦,王兴祥,丁晨彦,周尔园

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2006.10.023

2006-01-01

Chinese General Practice

Abstract:Objective To explore the factors raising the effective ratio of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in cardiac arrest (CA).Methods A retrospective analysis was done on the clinical data of CPR in 87 CA patients.The clinical data included the age,the basic disease before CA,the starting time of electric defibrillation and CPR,the duration of CPR,the starting time of artificial respiration.Results In 87 cases,49 were successfully resuscitated(56.3%),while 38 were unsuccessful(43.7%).There were significant differences between the patients who were successfully resuscitated and those who were unsuccessful in the distribution of etiological factor,the age,the starting time of electric defibrillation and CPR,the duration of CPR (P0.05),but the starting time of artificial respiration were similar(P0.05).Adrenalin of 1mg was used at first,then the dosage of adrenalin was added,which was applied to 21 patients who were successfully resuscitated,and to 9 patients who were not.Conclusion The major factors affecting the effective rate of CPR are the primary disease,the age,the starting time of electric defibrillation and CPR and the duration of CPR;Building the artificial circulation immediately and the effective combination of the dosage and the time of using adrenaline are the key measures to raise the effective rate of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more

Ayman El-Menyar,Mashhood Naduvilekandy,Sandro Rizoli,Salvatore Di Somma,Basar Cander,Sagar Galwankar,Fatimah Lateef,Mohamed Alwi Abdul Rahman,Prabath Nanayakkara,Hassan Al-Thani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05037-4

2024-07-30

Abstract:Background: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can restore spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and neurological function and save lives. We conducted an umbrella review, including previously published systematic reviews (SRs), that compared mechanical and manual CPR; after that, we performed a new SR of the original studies that were not included after the last published SR to provide a panoramic view of the existing evidence on the effectiveness of CPR methods. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline were searched, including English in-hospital (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) SRs, and comparing mechanical versus manual CPR. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and GRADE were used to assess the quality of included SRs/studies. We included both IHCA and OHCA, which compared mechanical and manual CPR. We analyzed at least one of the outcomes of interest, including ROSC, survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, 30-day survival, and survival to hospital discharge with good neurological function. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed for age, gender, initial rhythm, arrest location, and type of CPR devices. Results: We identified 249 potentially relevant records, of which 238 were excluded. Eleven SRs were analyzed in the Umbrella review (January 2014-March 2022). Furthermore, for a new, additional SR, we identified eight eligible studies (not included in any prior SR) for an in-depth analysis between April 1, 2021, and February 15, 2024. The higher chances of using mechanical CPR for male patients were significantly observed in three studies. Two studies showed that younger patients received more mechanical treatment than older patients. However, studies did not comment on the outcomes based on the patient's gender or age. Most SRs and studies were of low to moderate quality. The pooled findings did not show the superiority of mechanical compared to manual CPR except in a few selected subgroups. Conclusions: Given the significant heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included studies and SRs, our findings do not provide definitive evidence to support the superiority of mechanical CPR over manual CPR. However, mechanical CPR can serve better where high-quality manual CPR cannot be performed in selected situations.
Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis

Cheng-Ying Chiang,Ket-Cheong Lim,Pei Chun Lai,Tou-Yuan Tsai,Yen Ta Huang,Ming-Jen Tsai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051448

IF: 3.9

2022-03-07

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:In pre-hospital settings, efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging; therefore, the application of mechanical CPR devices continues to increase. However, the evidence of the benefits of using mechanical CPR devices in pre-hospital settings for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is controversial. This meta-analysis compared the effects of mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage on clinical outcomes after OHCA. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until October 2021. Studies comparing mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage for survival outcomes of adult OHCA were eligible. Data abstraction, quality assessment, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation were conducted. Seven randomized controlled and 15 observational studies were included. Compared to manual CPR, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR showed a positive effect in achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to admission. No difference was found in survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological status, with inconclusive results in TSA. In conclusion, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR devices may benefit adult OHCA in achieving ROSC and survival to admission. With low certainty of evidence, more well-designed large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

medicine, general & internal
Iatrogenic Injuries in Manual and Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Magnus J Chun,Yichi Zhang,Eman A Toraih,Patrick R McGrew

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348211047507

Abstract:Purpose: Mechanical chest compression has been shown to be equivalent to manual chest compression in providing survival benefits to patients experiencing cardiac arrest. There has been a growing need for a contemporary review of iatrogenic injuries caused by mechanical in comparison with manual chest compression. Our study aims to analyze the studies that document significant life-threatening iatrogenic injuries caused by mechanical and manual chest compression. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and Embase was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies published after January 1st, 2000 were reviewed using inclusion/exclusion criteria and completed by May 2020. A total of 7202 patients enrolled in 15 studies were included in our meta-analysis. Results: Significant life-threatening iatrogenic injuries had higher odds of occurring when mechanical chest compression was used compared to manual chest compression, especially for hemothorax and liver lacerations. Mechanical chest compression involves consistently deeper compression depths compared to manual chest compression, potentially resulting in more injuries. In the mechanical chest compression cohort, chest wall fractures had the highest incidence rate (55.7%), followed by sternal fracture (28.3%), lung injuries (3.7%), liver (1.0%), and diaphragm (.2%) lacerations. Conclusions: Mechanical chest compression was associated with more iatrogenic injuries as compared to manual chest compression. Further research is needed to define the appropriate application of mechanical in comparison with manual chest compression in different scenarios. Levels of provider training, different mechanical chest compression device types, patient demographics, and compression duration/depth may all play roles in influencing outcomes.
High-Quality Chest Compression for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Newly-Designed Automatic Device

Mingze Sun,Ke Li,Fengyang Xu,Lijun Jiang,Jiali Wang,Feng Xu,Yuguo Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC40787.2023.10340167

Abstract:High-quality chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can remarkably improve survival rate and reduce the risk of secondary injury. In this study, a newly-designed automatic chest compression device was applied on an animal model and the effects of chest compression were examined in comparison of manual compression and machine compression by a commercialized device. Three pigs (weight:30±2 kg) were used for the experiment. A LUCAS2 CPR machine and the newly-designed CPR device were used for automatic compression treatment. Compression pressure and chest displacement were collected in the process of CPR. Regarding the statistical distribution of compression depths, the new CPR device showed a mean of the depths at 1.64 inches, which was greater than that of manual (mean = 1.21 inches) and of LUCAS2 (mean = 1.18 inches). In addition, the new CPR device showed a standard deviation (SD) of compression depths at 0.07 inches, which was lower than that of manual (SD = 0.15 inches) and of LUCAS2 (SD = 0.25 inches). These results suggested that the new CPR device performed higher compression depths with lower compression variability, indicating enforced compression and better stability. This study provided a preliminarily outcomes validating the new CPR device, which may play a role in high-quality chest compression for the first aid in emergency.Clinical Relevance- This study established an animal model to validate a newly-designed automatic device for CPR. Comparing with manual chest compression and automatic compression using LUCAS2, the new device showed greater compression depths and better stability, which may provide more effective CPR treatment for clinical usage.
Mechanical chest compression with a medical parallel manipulator for cardiopulmonary resuscitation

G Yedukondalu,A Srinath,J Suresh Kumar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1628

Abstract:Background: Chest compression is the primary technique in emergency situations for resuscitating patients who have a cardiac arrest. Even for experienced personnel, it is difficult to perform chest compressions at the correct compression rate and depth. Methods: We describe a new translational three-revolute-revolute-revolute (3-RRR) parallel manipulator designed for delivering chest compressions. The kinematic and chest analyses have been carried out analytically. The motion of the parallel manipulator while performing chest compressions was simulated under experimental conditions and the results were verified in MSC ADAMS software. Results: Simulation and experimental results had more or less similar results. The proposed parallel manipulator was able to achieve 120 compressions/min (cpm) with a depth in the range 38-51 mm during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Conclusions: The design of the manipulator makes it easy to deploy for performing chest compressions at the correct compression rate and depth, as outlined in the 2010 resuscitation guidelines.
Comparison of the effects of using feedback devices for training or simulated cardiopulmonary arrest

Jinghao Jiang,Jinghuang Yan,Dongai Yao,Jinsong Xiao,Rongtao Chen,Yan Zhao,Xiaoqing Jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02669-z

2024-03-29

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Abstract:High-quality chest compression is essential for successful cardiac arrest resuscitation. High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can effectively improve the survival rate of patients with cardiopulmonary arrest. However, bystanders untrained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation may provide inadequate chest compressions. Previous studies have shown that the use of feedback devices in training alone or in simulated cardiopulmonary arrest alone can improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This study aims to determine whether using an audiovisual feedback (AVF) device during CPR training or a simulated cardiopulmonary arrest (CA) scenario would be more effective in improving the quality of chest compressions (CC).

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the Thumper Device for Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Ding Luo,Yuji Weng,Na Zhang,Baichao Xu,Hua Zhang,Jiameng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2407191

2023-07-03

Abstract:Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a major rescue measure for cardiac arrest (CA) patients, and chest compression is the key to CPR. The Thumper device was designed to facilitate manual compression during CPR. However, current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide controversial findings on the efficacy of the Thumper device. Objectives: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical benefits of using the Thumper device with manual chest compressions during the provision of CPR for patients in CA. Methods: Relevant studies were retrieved from various databases, including Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CNKI, and by manually searching the reference lists of research and review articles. All RCTs published in either English or Chinese until June 31, 2020, were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival rate (SR), and the incidence of rib fractures (RFs) were compared between the manual and Thumper chest compressions. Results: A total of 2164 records were identified, of which 16 were RCTs with an overall risk of bias ranging from low to medium classification. Following CPR, the odds ratios for ROSC, SR, and RF were significantly better for the Thumper chest compression with ORs of 2.56 (95% CI 2.11-3.11, I 2 = 0%), 4.06 (95% CI 2.77-5.93, I 2 = 0%), and 0.24 (95% CI 0.14-0.41, I 2 = 0%), respectively. Conclusions: The Thumper compression devices may improve patient outcome, when used at inhospital cardiac arrest. This review suggests a potential role for mechanical chest compression devices for in-hospital cardiac arrest, but there is an urgent need for high-quality research, particularly adequately powered randomised trials, to further examine this role.
Testing mechanical chest compression devices for pre-hospital patient transport under resuscitation

Maximilian Jörgens,Jürgen Körniger,Karl-Georg Kanz,Torsten Birkholz,Heiko Hübner,Stephan Prückner,Bernhard Zwissler,Heiko Trentzsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-67562/v1

2020-09-01

Abstract:Abstract Background Mechanical chest compression (mCPR) offers advantages during transport under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Little is known how devices perform en-route. Aim of the study was to measure performance of mCPR devices of different design during 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 and compression-ventilation ratio was 40% (AM), 87% (CC, L2 respectively) and 93% (AP). 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), 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.
Compression-only Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Vs Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: an Updated Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Lan Yao,Peng Wang,Lili Zhou,Mingdi Chen,Yuanshan Liu,Xiaozhu Wei,Zitong Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.01.055

2014-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVES:To perform an updated meta-analysis of observational studies with unstratified cohort addressing whether compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), compared with standard CPR, improves outcomes in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and a subgroup meta-analysis for the patients with cardiac etiology arrest.METHODS:We searched the relevant literature from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The baseline information and outcome data (survival to hospital discharge, favorable neurologic outcome at hospital discharge, and return of spontaneous circulation on hospital arrival) were extracted both in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and cardiac origin arrest subgroup. Meta-analyses were performed by using Review Manager 5.0.RESULTS:Eight studies involving 92,033 patients were eligible. Overall meta-analysis showed that standard CPR was associated with statistically improved survival to hospital discharge (risk ratio [RR], 0.95 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-0.99]) and return of spontaneous circulation on hospital arrival (RR, 0.95 [95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99]) compared with compression-only CPR, but there is no significant difference in favorable neurologic outcome at hospital discharge between 2 CPR methods (RR, 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.04]). In the subgroup of patients with a cardiac cause of arrest, the pooled meta-analysis found compression-only CPR resulted in the similar survival to hospital discharge as standard CPR (RR, 0.99 [95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.05]).CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis found that compression-only CPR resulted in the similar survival rate as the standard CPR in the cardiac etiology subgroup. It is unclear for the patients with noncardiac cause of arrest and with long periods of untreated arrest.
Comparison of hemodynamic effects of chest compression delivered via machine or human in asphyxiated piglets

Megan O'Reilly,Tze-Fun Lee,Po-Yin Cheung,Georg M Schmölzer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02827-4

Abstract:Background: High-quality chest compressions (CC) are an important factor of neonatal resuscitation. Mechanical CC devices may provide superior CC delivery and improve resuscitation outcomes. We aimed to compare the hemodynamic effects of CC delivered by machine and human using a neonatal piglet model. Methods: Twelve asphyxiated piglets were randomized to receive CC during resuscitation using an automated mechanical CC device ("machine") or the two-thumb encircling technique ("human"). CC was superimposed with sustained inflations. Results: Twelve newborn piglets (age 0-3 days, weight 2.12 ± 0.17 kg) were included in the study. Machine-delivered CC resulted in an increase in stroke volume, and minimum and maximum rate of left ventricle pressure change (dp/dtmin and dp/dtmax) compared to human-delivered CC. Conclusions: During machine-delivered CC, stroke volume and left ventricular contractility were significantly improved. Mechanical CC devices may provide improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcomes in neonatal cardiac arrest induced by asphyxia. Impact: Machine chest compression leads to changes in hemodynamic parameters during resuscitation of asphyxiated neonatal piglets, namely greater stroke volume and left ventricular contractility, compared with standard two-thumb compression technique. Mechanical chest compression devices may provide improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcomes in neonatal and pediatric asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest.
Resuscitation of patients with durable mechanical circulatory support with acutely altered perfusion or cardiac arrest: A scoping review

Ari Moskowitz,Helen Pocock,Anthony Lagina,Kee Chong Ng,Barnaby R Scholefield,Carolyn M Zelop,Janet Bray,Joseph Rossano,Nicholas J Johnson,Joel Dunning,Theresa Olasveengen,Tia Raymond,David L S Morales,Anthony Carlese,Marie Elias,Katherine M Berg,Ian Drennan,ILCOR Advanced Life Support, Basical Life Support, and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110389

IF: 6.251

Resuscitation

Abstract:Background: There is an increasing prevalence of durable mechanical circulatory supported patients in both the in-and-out of hospital communities. The scientific literature regarding the approach to patients supported by durable mechanical circulatory devices who suffer acutely impaired perfusion has not been well explored. Methods: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced, Basic, and Pediatric Life Support Task Forces conducted a scoping review of the literature using a population, context, and concept framework. Results: A total of 32 publications that included patients who were receiving durable mechanical circulatory support and required acute resuscitation were identified. Most of the identified studies were case reports or small case series. Of these, 11 (34.4%) included patients who received chest compressions. A number of studies reported upon delays in the application of chest compressions resulting from complexity due to the expected pulselessness in some patients with continuous flow left-ventricular assist devices as well as from concern regarding potential dislodgement of the mechanical circulatory support device. Three observational studies identified worse outcomes in durable mechanical circulatory support receiving patients with cardiac arrest and acutely impaired perfusion who received chest compressions as compared to those who did not, however those studies were at high risk of bias. Of 226 patients across 11 studies and two published scientific abstracts who sustained cardiac arrest while supported by durable MCS and underwent chest compressions, there were no reported instances of device dislodgement and 71 (31.4%) patients had favorable outcomes. Conclusions: There is a scarcity of evidence to inform the resuscitation of patients with durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) experiencing acute impairment in perfusion and cardiac arrest. Reports indicate that delays in resuscitation often stem from rescuers' uncertainty about the safety of administering chest compressions. Notably, no instances of device dislodgement have been documented following chest compressions, suggesting that the risk of harm from timely CPR in these patients is minimal.
Anterior-posterior thoracic force-deflection characteristics measured during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison to post-mortem human subject data

Kristy B Arbogast,Matthew R Maltese,Vinay M Nadkarni,Petter Andreas Steen,Jon B Nysaether

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4271/2006-22-0006

Abstract:Comparative data of thoracic compression response between live vs. post mortem human subjects (PMHS) has been reported, but the live subject tests are often at low deflections and include the effects of muscle tensing. Novel technology has been developed that overcomes several of these limitations. Specifically, a load cell and accelerometer has been integrated into a clinical monitor-defibrillator to measure chest compression and applied force during live human cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The sensor is interposed between the hands of the person administering CPR and the sternum of the patient. The objective of this study was to compare the thoracic force-deflection measured during adult CPR to that measured during hub-based loading of adult PMHS. CPR represents a unique setting in which to study the mechanics of the chest as the thorax is loaded to a maximum chest deflection similar to that seen in a frontal crash environment and the effects of muscle tensing are minimized. PMHS and CPR data were modeled with a progressive spring in parallel with a viscous damper. Statistical comparison of the model parameters used to describe the compliance of the thorax during large compressions revealed that under the specific loading conditions tested, chest compressions during CPR generated less force at equivalent deflections than the PMHS. Specifically, the spring force at 40 mm deflection was 286 N for the CPR data and 588 N for the PMHS. Differences in area of load application and thoracic structures engaged, however, may partially explain these differences. In addition, the chest response during CPR demonstrated more hysteresis than the PMHS suggesting that the viscoelastic nature of the thorax is more pronounced when tissues are naturally perfused and substantial tissue autolysis has not begun. This study presents fundamental biomechanical data on the mechanical response of the adult thorax that increases our understanding of any potential differences between PMHS and chest response obtained during CPR before substantial tissue autolysis begins. We contend that the thoracic compliance measured during CPR may continue to offer important force-deflection estimates in the future.
Chest Decompressions - The Driver of CPR Efficacy: Exploring the Relationship Between Compression Rate, Depth, Recoil Velocity, and End-Tidal CO2

Kira Chandran,Isabel M. Algaze Gonzalez,Sixian Wang,Daniel P. Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2364058

2024-06-23

Prehospital Emergency Care

Abstract:Objective Cardiopulmonary arrest survival is dependent on optimization of perfusion via high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), defined by a complex dynamic between rate, depth, and recoil velocity. Here we explore the interaction between these metrics and create a model that explores the impact of these variables on compression efficacy.

public, environmental & occupational health,emergency medicine
A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest

Gil Joon Suh,Taegyun Kim,Kyung Su Kim,Woon Yong Kwon,Hayoung Kim,Heesu Park,Gaonsorae Wang,Jaeheung Park,Sungmoon Hur,Jaehoon Sim,Kyunghwan Kim,Jung Chan Lee,Dong Ah Shin,Woo Sang Cho,Byung Jun Kim,Soyoon Kwon,Ye Ji Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297057

IF: 3.7

2024-01-20

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Recently, 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. A 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. In 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 CO 2 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). The 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.

multidisciplinary sciences
Comparison of different mechanical chest compression devices in the alpine rescue setting: a randomized triple crossover experiment

Egger Alexander,Tscherny Katharina,Fuhrmann Verena,Grafeneder Jürgen,Niederer Maximilian,Kienbacher Calvin,Schachner Andreas,Schreiber Wolfgang,Herkner Harald,Roth Dominik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00899-x

2021-06-29

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in mountain environment is challenging. Continuous chest compressions during transport or hoist rescue are almost impossible without mechanical chest compression devices. Current evidence is predominantly based on studies conducted by urbane ambulance service. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the feasibility of continuous mechanical chest compression during alpine terrestrial transport using three different devices. Methods Randomized triple crossover prospective study in an alpine environment. Nineteen teams of the Austrian Mountain Rescue Service trained according to current ERC guidelines performed three runs each of a standardised alpine rescue-scenario, using three different devices for mechanical chest compression. Quality of CPR, hands-off-time and displacement of devices were measured. Results The primary outcome of performed work (defined as number of chest compressions x compression depth) was 66,062 mm (2832) with Corpuls CPR, 65,877 mm (6163) with Physio-Control LUCAS 3 and 40,177 mm (4396) with Schiller Easy Pulse. The difference both between LUCAS 3 and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,700; 95% confidence interval 21,118 – 30,282) and between Corpuls CPR and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,885; 23,590 – 28,181) was significant. No relevant differences were found regarding secondary outcomes. Conclusion Mechanical chest compression devices provide a viable option in the alpine setting. For two out of three devices (Corpuls CPR and LUCAS 3) we found adequate quality of CPR. Those devices also maintained a correct placement of the piston even during challenging terrestrial transport. Adequate hands-off-times and correct placement could be achieved even by less trained personnel.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Is Better Than Manual CPR? Literature Study

Safety of mechanical and manual chest compressions in cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compression: A Retrospective-Cohort in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

The Discussion of Several Problems about Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Cardiac Arrest

Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more

Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis

Iatrogenic Injuries in Manual and Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

High-Quality Chest Compression for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Newly-Designed Automatic Device

Mechanical chest compression with a medical parallel manipulator for cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Comparison of the effects of using feedback devices for training or simulated cardiopulmonary arrest

Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the Thumper Device for Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Testing mechanical chest compression devices for pre-hospital patient transport under resuscitation

Compression-only Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Vs Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: an Updated Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Comparison of hemodynamic effects of chest compression delivered via machine or human in asphyxiated piglets

Resuscitation of patients with durable mechanical circulatory support with acutely altered perfusion or cardiac arrest: A scoping review

Anterior-posterior thoracic force-deflection characteristics measured during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: comparison to post-mortem human subject data

Chest Decompressions - The Driver of CPR Efficacy: Exploring the Relationship Between Compression Rate, Depth, Recoil Velocity, and End-Tidal CO2

A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest

Comparison of different mechanical chest compression devices in the alpine rescue setting: a randomized triple crossover experiment