Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions. (March 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fox, Julia; Fiechter, René; Gerstl, Peter; Url, Alfons; Wagner, Heinz; Lüscher, Thomas F.; Eriksson, Urs; Wyss, Christophe A.
• Is Part Of: Acute cardiac care. Volume 15:Number 1(2013)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 6
• Publication Date: 2013-03
• Subjects: Cardiac intensive care -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.12028
• DOI: 10.3109/17482941.2012.735675
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-2941

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p> <italic>Background:</italic> Novel mechanical chest compression devices offer the possibility to transport cardiac arrest patients with ongoing CPR and might shorten significantly the time delay to post-resuscitation care.</p> <p> <italic>Methods:</italic> We simulated an eight-minute cardiac resuscitation situation during ambulance transport using CPR training manikins. We compared teams consisting of two experienced resuscitators with the performance of a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS).</p> <p> <italic>Results:</italic> CPR-performance by two experienced resuscitators demonstrated ambivalent results. Whereas mean compression rate was within the recommended range (103/min, 95% CI: 93–113/min), mean compression depth was closely below the actually recommended compression depth of >5 cm (49.7 mm, 95% CI: 46.1–53.3mm). Nevertheless, only a mean of two thirds (67%) of all compressions were classified as manually correct (defined as sternal compression depth >5 cm). In contrast, the LUCAS device showed a constant and reliable CPR performance (99.96% correctly applied chest compressions correctly applied within the device programmed parameters, <italic>P</italic> = 0.0162) with almost no variance between the different sequences.</p> <p> <italic>Conclusion:</italic> The LUCAS CPR device represents a reliable alternative to manual CPR in a moving ambulance vehicle during emergency evacuation. Furthermore, it needs less human resources and is safer for the EMS personnel.</p> </abstract>