A comparison of prolonged manual and mechanical external chest compression after cardiac arrest in dogs

A novel mechanical chest compressor with rapid deployment in all population cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) resuscitates patients suffering from cardiac arrest. Mechanical chest compression CPR highlights the need for high CPR quality to facilitate survival and neurological recovery. However, current CPR devices cannot be used on pregnant women or infants. These devices’ long re-setup times interrupt CPR and can cause cerebral ischemia. This study designed a novel device with a crank-sliding mechanism. The polar coordinate system (r, θ, z) shortened the setup time and enabled adjustment without moving the patient. We compared our device with commercial products (e.g., LUCAS-2) by quantifying the compression pressure. Control groups for manual CPR of trained physicians and untrained citizens were recruited. We used Resusci Anne products as models. Our results indicated that our design exhibited performance similar to that of LUCAS-2 in adults (557.8 vs. 623.6 mmHg, p = 0.217) and met the current CPR standard guidelines. Notably, our device is applicable to pregnant women [565 vs. 564.5 (adults) mmHg, p = 0.987] and infants [570.8 vs. 564.5 (adults) mmHg, p = 0.801] without lowering the compression quality. The overall compression quality and stability of mechanical chest compression CPR were favorable to those of manual CPR. Our device provides an innovative prototype for the next generation of CPR facilities.

Manual Versus Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Case Against the Machine

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality, including chest compression rate, depth, and fraction of hands-on time, is integral to cardiac arrest survival. Introducing mechanized devices to target these measures of quality in the challenging prehospital environment holds great promise. Comparing mechanical to manual CPR, animal models deliver favorable results on markers of perfusion and manikin studies demonstrate improved consistency of high-quality CPR performance with device use. Factoring in real-world application with prospective randomized human trials; however, repeatedly fails to show improvements in patient-centered outcomes and thus cannot be supported by current scientific evidence.