A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation

Cardiac arrest is a dynamic disease that tests the multitasking and leadership abilities of emergency physicians. Providers must simultaneously manage the logistics of resuscitation while searching for the cause of cardiac arrest. The astute clinician will also realize that he or she is orchestrating only one portion of a larger series of events, each of which directly affects patient outcomes. Resuscitation science is rapidly evolving, and emergency providers must be familiar with the latest evidence and controversies surrounding resuscitative techniques. This article reviews evidence, discusses controversies, and offers strategies to provide quality cardiac arrest resuscitation.

Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS

The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group.

INTERPRETATION

We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research HTA - 07/37/69.

Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial

AIM

We studied resuscitation process metrics in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest enrolled in a randomized trial comparing one protocol designed to best use a mechanical CPR device, with another based on the 2005 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for manual CPR.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical data, ECG signals, and transthoracic impedance signals for a subset of the patients in the LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest (LINC) trial, including 124 patients randomized to mechanical and 82 to manual CPR. Chest compression fraction (CCF) was defined as the fraction of time during cardiac arrest that chest compressions were administered.

RESULTS

Patients in the mechanical CPR group had a higher CCF than those in the manual CPR group [0.84 (0.78, 0.91) vs. 0.79 (0.70, 0.86), p < 0.001]. The median duration of their pauses for defibrillation was also shorter [0 s (0, 6.0) vs. 10.0 s (7.0, 14.3), p < 0.001]. Compressions were interrupted for a median of 36.0 s to apply the compression device. There was no difference between groups in duration of the longest pause in compressions [32.5s vs. 26.0 s, p = 0.24], number of compressions received per minute [86.5 vs. 88.3, p = 0.47], defibrillation success rate [73.2% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.15], or refibrillation rate [74% vs. 77%, p = 0.79].

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol using mechanical chest compression devices reduced interruptions in chest compressions, and enabled defibrillation during ongoing compressions, without adversely affecting other resuscitation process metrics. Future emphasis on optimizing device deployment may be beneficial.

[Mechanical resuscitation assist devices]

In Germany 100,000-160,000 people suffer from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) annually. The incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after OHCA varies between emergency ambulance services but is in the range of 30-90 CPR attempts per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Basic life support (BLS) involving chest compressions and ventilation is the key measure of resuscitation. Rapid initiation and quality of BLS are the most critical factors for CPR success. Even healthcare professionals are not always able to ensure the quality of CPR measures. Consequently in recent years mechanical resuscitation devices have been developed to optimize chest compression and the resulting circulation. In this article the mechanical resuscitation devices currently available in Germany are discussed and evaluated scientifically in context with available literature. The ANIMAX CPR device should not be used outside controlled trials as no clinical results have so far been published. The same applies to the new device Corpuls CPR which will be available on the market in early 2014. Based on the current published data a general recommendation for the routine use of LUCAS™ and AutoPulse® CPR cannot be given. The preliminary data of the CIRC trial and the published data of the LINC trial revealed that mechanical CPR is apparently equivalent to good manual CPR. For the final assessment further publications of large randomized studies must be analyzed (e.g. the CIRC and PaRAMeDIC trials). However, case control studies, case series and small studies have already shown that in special situations and in some cases patients will benefit from the automatic mechanical resuscitation devices (LUCAS™, AutoPulse®). This applies especially to emergency services where standard CPR quality is far below average and for patients who require prolonged CPR under difficult circumstances. This might be true in cases of resuscitation due to hypothermia, intoxication and pulmonary embolism as well as for patients requiring transport or coronary intervention when cardiac arrest persists. Three prospective randomized studies and the resulting meta-analysis are available for active compression-decompression resuscitation (ACD-CPR) in combination with an impedance threshold device (ITD). These studies compared ACD-ITD-CPR to standard CPR and clearly demonstrated that ACD-ITD-CPR is superior to standard CPR concerning short and long-term survival with good neurological recovery after OHCA.

Mechanical chest compression with a medical parallel manipulator for cardiopulmonary resuscitation

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.

Systematic review of the mechanisms driving effective blood flow during adult CPR

BACKGROUND

High quality chest compressions is the most significant factor related to improved short-term and long-term outcome in cardiac arrest. However, considerable controversy exists over the mechanisms involved in driving blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to elucidate major mechanisms involved in effective compression-mediated blood flow during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of studies identified from the bibliographic databases of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All human and animal studies including information on the responsible mechanisms of compression-related blood flow.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers (MG, TX) independently screened all potentially relevant titles and abstracts for eligibility, by using a standardized data-worksheet.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Because of the heterogeneity in outcome measures, quantitative synthesis of evidence was not feasible. Evidence was critically synthesized in order to answer the review questions, taking into account study heterogeneity and validity. The number of included studies per category is as follows: blood flow during chest compression, nine studies; blood flow during chest decompression, six studies; effect of chest compression on cerebral blood flow, eight studies; active compression-decompression CPR, 14 studies; and effect of ventilation on compression-related blood flow, 13 studies.

CONCLUSION

The evidence so far is inconclusive regarding the major responsible mechanism in compression-related blood flow. Although both 'cardiac pump' and 'thoracic pump' have a key role, the effect of each mechanism is highly depended on other resuscitation parameters, such as positive pressure ventilation and compression depth.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of the Cochrane review on mechanical chest compression devices published in 2011 (Brooks 2011). Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of mechanical chest compressions versus standard manual chest compressions with respect to neurologically intact survival in patients who suffer cardiac arrest.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL; 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2013 January Week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 January Week 2), Science Citation abstracts (1960 to 18 November 2009), Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to 11 January 2013) on Thomson Reuters Web of Science, biotechnology and bioengineering abstracts (1982 to 18 November 2009), conference proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 11 January 2013) and clinicaltrials.gov (2 August 2013). We applied no language restrictions. Experts in the field of mechanical chest compression devices and manufacturers were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-randomised studies comparing mechanical chest compressions versus manual chest compressions during CPR for patients with atraumatic cardiac arrest.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors abstracted data independently; disagreement between review authors was resolved by consensus and by a third review author if consensus could not be reached. The methodologies of selected studies were evaluated by a single author for risk of bias. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome. We planned to use RevMan 5 (Version 5.2. The Nordic Cochrane Centre) and the DerSimonian & Laird method (random-effects model) to provide a pooled estimate for risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), if data allowed.

MAIN RESULTS

Two new studies were included in this update. Six trials in total, including data from 1166 participants, were included in the review. The overall quality of included studies was poor, and significant clinical heterogeneity was observed. Only one study (N = 767) reported survival to hospital discharge with good neurological function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of one or two), demonstrating reduced survival with mechanical chest compressions when compared with manual chest compressions (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79). Data from four studies demonstrated increased return of spontaneous circulation, and data from two studies demonstrated increased survival to hospital admission with mechanical chest compressions as compared with manual chest compressions, but none of the individual estimates reached statistical significance. Marked clinical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs in humans is insufficient to conclude that mechanical chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest are associated with benefit or harm. Widespread use of mechanical devices for chest compressions during cardiac events is not supported by this review. More RCTs that measure and account for the CPR process in both arms are needed to clarify the potential benefit to be derived from this intervention.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: [corrected] improving cardiac resuscitation outcomes both inside and outside the hospital: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association

The "2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care" increased the focus on methods to ensure that high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed in all resuscitation attempts. There are 5 critical components of high-quality CPR: minimize interruptions in chest compressions, provide compressions of adequate rate and depth, avoid leaning between compressions, and avoid excessive ventilation. Although it is clear that high-quality CPR is the primary component in influencing survival from cardiac arrest, there is considerable variation in monitoring, implementation, and quality improvement. As such, CPR quality varies widely between systems and locations. Victims often do not receive high-quality CPR because of provider ambiguity in prioritization of resuscitative efforts during an arrest. This ambiguity also impedes the development of optimal systems of care to increase survival from cardiac arrest. This consensus statement addresses the following key areas of CPR quality for the trained rescuer: metrics of CPR performance; monitoring, feedback, and integration of the patient's response to CPR; team-level logistics to ensure performance of high-quality CPR; and continuous quality improvement on provider, team, and systems levels. Clear definitions of metrics and methods to consistently deliver and improve the quality of CPR will narrow the gap between resuscitation science and the victims, both in and out of the hospital, and lay the foundation for further improvements in the future.

Obstacles delaying the prompt deployment of piston-type mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices during emergency department resuscitation: a video-recording and time-motion study

BACKGROUND

The quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is important to survival after cardiac arrest. Mechanical devices (MD) provide constant CPR, but their effectiveness may be affected by deployment timeliness.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the timeliness of the overall and of each essential step in the deployment of a piston-type MD during emergency department (ED) resuscitation, and to identify factors associated with delayed MD deployment by video recordings.

METHODS

Between December 2005 and December 2008, video clips from resuscitations with CPR sessions using a MD in the ED were reviewed using time-motion analyses. The overall deployment timeliness and the time spent on each essential step of deployment were measured.

RESULTS

There were 37 CPR recordings that used a MD. Deployment of MD took an average 122.6 ± 57.8s. The 3 most time-consuming steps were: (1) setting the device (57.8 ± 38.3s), (2) positioning the patient (33.4 ± 38.0 s), and (3) positioning the device (14.7 ± 9.5s). Total no flow time was 89.1 ± 41.2s (72.7% of total time) and associated with the 3 most time-consuming steps. There was no difference in the total timeliness, no-flow time, and no-flow ratio between different rescuer numbers, time of day of the resuscitation, or body size of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescuers spent a significant amount of time on MD deployment, leading to long no-flow times. Lack of familiarity with the device and positioning strategy were associated with poor performance. Additional training in device deployment strategies are required to improve the benefits of mechanical CPR.

The study protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in cardiac arrest) study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation

Background

The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO_2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation.

Methods/design

This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1).

Results

Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR.

Conclusion

This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.

Comparison of computed tomography and autopsy in detection of injuries after unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation

AIM

Computed tomography (CT) has been suggested as an aid or even a replacement for autopsy. The aim of this trial was to study the conformity of the two methods in finding injuries in non-surviving patients after unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 31 patients were submitted to a CT prior to autopsy after unsuccessful resuscitation attempts. Pathological findings were noted by both the radiologist and the pathologists in a specified protocol. The pathologists and radiologist were blinded from each other's results.

RESULTS

CT and autopsy revealed rib fractures in 22 and 24 patients respectively (kappa=0.83). In 8 patients, CT revealed more rib fractures than autopsy; and in 12 patients, autopsy revealed more rib fractures than CT. In 7 patients, neither method showed any rib fractures. The mean difference between the two methods in detecting rib fractures was 0.16 (S.D.: ± 3.174, limits of agreement: -6.19 to 6.51). The kappa value for sternal fractures was 0.49. A total of 260 pathological findings were noted by CT and 244 by autopsy. The average patient showed a median of 9 injuries (every fracture counted as one injury), independent of the method used in detecting the injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a strong concordance between the two methods in finding rib fractures but not sternal fractures and these results support the concept of CT as a valuable complement to autopsy in detecting rib fractures after unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation but not as a replacement. Other injuries did not show the same concordance.