Implementation of a Mechanical Chest Compression Device as Standard Equipment in a Large Metropolitan Ambulance Service

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

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments.

RESULTS

There were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Although there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

Use of Mechanical Chest Compression for Resuscitation in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest-Device Matters: A Propensity-Score-Based Match Analysis

BACKGROUND

Devices for mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are recommended when high quality CPR cannot be provided. Different devices are available, but the literature is poor in direct comparison studies. Our aim was to assess whether the type of mechanical chest compressor could affect the probability of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and 30-day survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) patients as compared to manual standard CPR.

METHODS

We considered all OHCAs that occurred from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2022 in seven provinces of the Lombardy region equipped with three different types of mechanical compressor: Autopulse^®(ZOLL Medical, MA), LUCAS^® (Stryker, MI), and Easy Pulse^® (Schiller, Switzerland).

RESULTS

Two groups, 2146 patients each (manual and mechanical CPR), were identified by propensity-score-based random matching. The rates of ROSC (15% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and 30-day survival (6% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) were lower in the mechanical CPR group. After correction for confounders, Autopulse^® [OR 2.1, 95%CI (1.6-2.8), p < 0.001] and LUCAS^® [OR 2.5, 95%CI (1.7-3.6), p < 0.001] significantly increased the probability of ROSC, and Autopulse^® significantly increased the probability of 30-day survival compared to manual CPR [HR 0.9, 95%CI (0.8-0.9), p = 0.005].

CONCLUSION

Mechanical chest compressors could increase the rate of ROSC, especially in case of prolonged resuscitation. The devices were dissimilar, and their different performances could significantly influence patient outcomes. The load-distributing-band device was the only mechanical chest able to favorably affect 30-day survival.

What are ambulance crews' experiences of using a mechanical chest compression device for out-of-hospital resuscitation? A constructivist qualitative study utilising online focus groups

Introduction

Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCDs) provide chest compressions mechanically to a person in cardiac arrest. Those chest compressions would usually be provided manually. Previous studies into the use of MCCDs have focused on the quantitative outcomes, with little emphasis on the qualitative experiences of those using MCCDs.

Purpose

To collect and report ambulance crews' experiences of using MCCDs for out-of-hospital resuscitation attempts.

Methods

The philosophical approach was constructivist, the methodology qualitative and the data collection method online focus groups. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants who met the inclusion criteria, which broadly were to have experience of using MCCDs for out-of-hospital resuscitation. There have been two types of MCCD used locally. Participants were included regardless of which type of device they had experience of. Similarly, participants were included whether they had active or passive experience of the devices. The focus groups were recorded, fully transcribed and then analysed using constant comparison.

Results

Four selective codes emerged. These were factors directly affecting ambulance crew members; practicalities of a resuscitation attempt; ambulance crew members' perceptions, experiences and thoughts; negatives of MCCDs.

Conclusion

The main perceptions arising from the participants' discussion in this work were that MCCD use could potentially provide psychological protection to ambulance crew members when reflecting on resuscitation attempts, and participants felt there is an overall reduction of cognitive load for ambulance crew members when using MCCDs for resuscitation attempts. There were particularly timely benefits expressed of MCCDs easing the physical fatigue of a resuscitation attempt when responding wearing personal protective equipment, as has been required during the COVID-19 pandemic. MCCDs were felt to be of benefit when transporting a patient in cardiac arrest but differences were expressed as to whether the LUCAS-2 in particular helps or hinders extrication of a patient.

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

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.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Introduction

Our goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods

We searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000–October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting.

Results

A total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates’ summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance.

Conclusion

Mechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.

No Benefit in Neurologic Outcomes of Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest with Mechanical Compression Device

INTRODUCTION

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death and morbidity in the United States. Quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has proven to be a key factor in improving survival. The aim of our study was to investigate the outcomes of OHCA when mechanical CPR (LUCAS 2 Chest Compression System™) was utilized compared to conventional CPR. Although controlled trials have not demonstrated a survival benefit to the routine use of mechanical CPR devices, there continues to be an interest for their use in OHCA.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of OHCA comparing the outcomes of mechanical and manual chest compressions in a fire department based EMS system serving a population of 1.4 million residents. Mechanical CPR devices were geographically distributed on 11 of 33 paramedic ambulances. Data were collected over a 36-month period and outcomes were dichotomized based on utilization of mechanical CPR. The primary outcome measure was survival to hospital discharge with a cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 1 or 2.

RESULTS

This series had 3,469 OHCA reports, of which 2,999 had outcome data and met the inclusion criteria. Of these 2,236 received only manual CPR and 763 utilized a mechanical CPR device during the resuscitation. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was attained in 44% (334/763) of the mechanical CPR resuscitations and in 46% (1,020/2,236) of the standard manual CPR resuscitations (p = 0.32). Survival to hospital discharge was observed in 7% (52/763) of the mechanical CPR resuscitations and 9% (191/2,236) of the manual CPR group (p = 0.13). Discharge with a CPC score of 1 or 2 was observed in 4% (29/763) of the mechanical CPR resuscitation group and 6% (129/2,236) of the manual CPR group (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, use of the mechanical CPR device was associated with a poor neurologic outcome at hospital discharge. However, this difference was no longer evident after logistic regression adjusting for confounding variables. Resuscitation management following institution of mechanical CPR, specifically medication and airway management, may account for the poor outcome reported. Further investigation of resuscitation management when a mechanical CPR device is utilized is necessary to optimize survival benefit.

The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study

Introduction

High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical for successful cardiac arrest outcomes. Mechanical devices may improve CPR quality. We simulated a prehospital cardiac arrest, including patient transport, and compared the performance of the LUCAS™ device, a mechanical chest compression-decompression system, to manual CPR. We hypothesized that because of the movement involved in transporting the patient, LUCAS would provide chest compressions more consistent with high-quality CPR guidelines.

Methods

We performed a crossover-controlled study in which a recording mannequin was placed on the second floor of a building. An emergency medical services (EMS) crew responded, defibrillated, and provided either manual or LUCAS CPR. The team transported the mannequin through hallways and down stairs to an ambulance and drove to the hospital with CPR in progress. Critical events were manually timed while the mannequin recorded data on compressions.

Results

Twenty-three EMS providers participated. Median time to defibrillation was not different for LUCAS compared to manual CPR (p=0.97). LUCAS had a lower median number of compressions per minute (112/min vs. 125/min; IQR = 102–128 and 102–126 respectively; p<0.002), which was more consistent with current American Heart Association CPR guidelines, and percent adequate compression rate (71% vs. 40%; IQR = 21–93 and 12–88 respectively; p<0.002). In addition, LUCAS had a higher percent adequate depth (52% vs. 36%; IQR = 25–64 and 29–39 respectively; p<0.007) and lower percent total hands-off time (15% vs. 20%; IQR = 10–22 and 15–27 respectively; p<0.005). LUCAS performed no differently than manual CPR in median compression release depth, percent fully released compressions, median time hands off, or percent correct hand position.

Conclusion

In our simulation, LUCAS had a higher rate of adequate compressions and decreased total hands-off time as compared to manual CPR. Chest compression quality may be better when using a mechanical device during patient movement in prehospital cardiac arrest patient.

Chest Compression Injuries Detected via Routine Post-arrest Care in Patients Who Survive to Admission after Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest

Abstract Objective. To examine injuries produced by chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who survive to hospital admission. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 235 consecutive patients who were hospitalized after nontraumatic OHCA in Minnesota between January 2009 and May 2012 (117 survived to discharge; 118 died during hospitalization). Cases were eligible if the patient had received prehospital compressions from an emergency medical services (EMS) provider. One EMS provider in the area was using a mechanical compression device (LUCAS^TM) as standard equipment, so the association between injury and use of mechanical compression was also examined. Prehospital care information was abstracted from EMS run sheets, and hospital records were reviewed for injuries documented during the post-arrest hospitalization that likely resulted from compressions. Results. Injuries were identified in 31 patients (13%), the most common being rib fracture (9%) and intrathoracic hemorrhage (3%). Among those who survived to discharge, the mean length of stay was not statistically significantly different between those with injuries (13.5 days) and those without (10.8 days; p = 0.23). Crude injury prevalence was higher in those who died prior to discharge, had received compressions for >10 minutes (versus ≤10 minutes) and underwent computer tomography (CT) imaging, but did not differ by bystander compressions or use of mechanical compression. After multivariable adjustment, only compression time > 10 min and CT imaging during hospitalization were positively associated with detected injury (OR = 7.86 [95% CI = 1.7-35.9] and 6.30 [95% CI = 2.6-15.5], respectively). Conclusion. In patients who survived OHCA to admission, longer duration of compressions and use of CT during the post-arrest course were associated positively with documented compression injury. Compression-induced injuries detected via routine post-arrest care are likely to be largely insignificant in terms of length of recovery.