Mechanical active compression–decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)

Oxygenation and ventilation during prolonged experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation with either continuous or 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratios together with 10 cmH20 positive end-expiratory pressure

BACKGROUND

In refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the patient is commonly transported to hospital with mechanical continuous chest compressions (CCC). Limited data are available on the optimal ventilation strategy. Accordingly, we compared arterial oxygenation and haemodynamics during manual asynchronous continuous ventilation and compressions with a 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio together with the use of 10 cmH2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP).

METHODS

Intubated and anaesthetized landrace pigs with electrically induced ventricular fibrillation were left untreated for 5 min (n = 31, weight ca. 55 kg), after which they were randomized to either the CCC group or the 30:2 group with the the LUCAS® 2 piston device and bag-valve ventilation with 100% oxygen targeting a tidal volume of 8 ml/kg with a PEEP of 10 cmH2O for 35 min. Arterial blood samples were analysed every 5 min, vital signs, near-infrared spectroscopy and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) were measured continuously, and post-mortem CT scans of the lungs were obtained.

RESULTS

The arterial blood values (median + interquartile range) at the 30-min time point were as follows: PaO2: 180 (86-302) mmHg for the 30:2 group; 70 (49-358) mmHg for the CCC group; PaCO2: 41 (29-53) mmHg for the 30:2 group; 44 (21-67) mmHg for the CCC group; and lactate: 12.8 (10.4-15.5) mmol/l for the 30:2 group; 14.7 (11.8-16.1) mmol/l for the CCC group. The differences were not statistically significant. In linear mixed models, there were no significant differences between the groups. The mean arterial pressures from the femoral artery, end-tidal CO2, distributions of ventilation from EIT and mean aeration of lung tissue in post-mortem CTs were similar between the groups. Eight pneumothoraces occurred in the CCC group and 2 in the 30:2 group, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The 30:2 and CCC protocols with a PEEP of 10 cmH2O resulted in similar gas exchange and vital sign outcomes in an experimental model of prolonged cardiac arrest with mechanical compressions, but the CCC protocol resulted in more post-mortem pneumothoraces.

Ventilation during continuous compressions or at 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio results in similar arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in an experimental model of prolonged cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

In refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, transportation to hospital with continuous chest compressions (CCC) from a chest compression device and ventilation with 100% oxygen through an advanced airway is common practice. Despite this, many patients are hypoxic and hypercapnic on arrival, possibly related to suboptimal ventilation due to the counterpressure caused by the CCC. We hypothesized that a compression/ventilation ratio of 30:2 would provide better ventilation and gas exchange compared to asynchronous CCC during prolonged experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

METHODS

We randomized 30 anaesthetized domestic swine (weight approximately 50 kg) with electrically induced ventricular fibrillation to the CCC or 30:2 group and bag-valve ventilation with a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) of 100%. We started CPR after a 5-min no-flow period and continued until 40 min from the induction of ventricular fibrillation. Chest compressions were performed with a Stryker Medical LUCAS® 2 mechanical chest compression device. We collected arterial blood gas samples every 5 min during the CPR, measured ventilation distribution during the CPR using electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and analysed post-mortem computed tomography (CT) scans for differences in lung aeration status.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range [IQR]) partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) at 30 min was 110 (52-117) mmHg for the 30:2 group and 70 (40-171) mmHg for the CCC group. The median (IQR) partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) at 30 min was 70 (45-85) mmHg for the 30:2 group and 68 (42-84) mmHg for the CCC group. No statistically significant differences between the groups in PaO₂ (p = 0.40), PaCO₂ (p = 0.79), lactate (p = 0.37), mean arterial pressure (MAP) (p = 0.47) or EtCO₂ (p = 0.19) analysed with a linear mixed model were found. We found a deteriorating trend in PaO₂, EtCO₂ and MAP and rising PaCO₂ and lactate levels through the intervention. There were no differences between the groups in the distribution of ventilation in the EIT data or the post-mortem CT findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The 30:2 and CCC protocols resulted in similar gas exchange and lung pathology in an experimental prolonged mechanical CPR model.

End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) at intubation and its increase after 10 minutes resuscitation predicts survival with good neurological outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients

AIM

To evaluate whether end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) value at intubation and its early increase (10 min) after intubation predict both the survival to hospital admission and the survival at hospital discharge, including good neurological outcome (CPC 1-2), in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

METHODS

All consecutive OHCA patients of any etiology between 2015 and 2018 in Pavia Province (Italy) and Ticino Region (Switzerland) were considered. Patients died before ambulance arrival, with a "do-not-resuscitate" order, without ETCO2 value or with incomplete data were excluded.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 668 patients. An ETCO2 value at intubation > 20 mmHg and its increase 10 min after intubation were independent predictors (after correction for known predictors of OHCA outcome) of survival to hospital admission and survival at hospital discharge. Relative to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome, ETCO2 at intubation and its 10-min change were confirmed predictors both individually and in a bivariable analysis (OR 1.83, 95 %CI 1.02-3.3; p = 0.04 and OR 3.9, 95 %CI 1.97-7.74; p < 0.001, respectively). This was confirmed also when accounting for gender, age, etiology and location. After further adjustment for bystander and CPR status, presenting rhythm and EMS arrival time, the ETCO2 change remained an independent predictor.

CONCLUSIONS

ETCO2 value > 20 mmHg at intubation and its increase during resuscitation improve the prediction of survival at hospital discharge with good neurological outcome of OHCA patients. ETCO2 increase during resuscitation is a more powerful predictor than ETCO2 at intubation. A larger prospective study to confirm this finding appears warranted.

Traumatic Injuries Following Mechanical versus Manual Chest Compression

Objective

Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) depends on multiple factors, mostly quality of chest compressions. Studies comparing manual compression with a mechanical active compression-depression device (ACD) have yielded controversial results in terms of outcomes and injury. The aim of the present study was to determine whether out-of-hospital ACD cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) use is associated with more skeletal fractures and/or internal injuries than manual compression, with similar duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) between the groups.

Methods

The cohort included all patients diagnosed with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) at a tertiary medical center between January 2018 and June 2019 who achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of skeletal fractures and/or internal injuries in the two groups. Secondary outcome measures were clinical factors contributing to skeletal fracture/internal injuries and to achievement of ROSC during CPR.

Results

Of 107 patients enrolled, 45 (42%) were resuscitated with manual chest compression and 62 (58%) with a piston-based ACD device (LUCAS). The duration of chest compression was 46.0 minutes vs. 48.5 minutes, respectively (p=0.82). There were no differences in rates of ROSC (53.2% vs.50.8%, p=0.84), cardiac etiology of OHCA (48.9% vs.43.5%, p=0.3), major complications (ribs/sternum fracture, pneumothorax, hemothorax, lung parenchymal damage, major bleeding), or any complication (20.5% vs.12.1%, p=0.28). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors with the highest predictive value for ROSC were cardiac etiology (OR 1.94;CI 2.00-12.94) and female sex (OR 1.94;CI 2.00-12.94). Type of arrhythmia had no significant effect. Use of the LUCAS was not associated with ROSC (OR 0.73;CI 0.34-2.1).

Conclusion

This is the first study to compare mechanical and manual out-of-hospital chest compression of similar duration to ROSC. The LUCAS did not show added benefit in terms of ROSC rate, and its use did not lead to a higher risk of traumatic injury. ACD devices may be more useful in cases of delayed ambulance response times, or events in remote locations.

Mechanical active compression-decompression versus standard mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomised haemodynamic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest study

BACKGROUND

Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) utilises a suction cup to lift the chest-wall actively during the decompression phase (AD). We hypothesised that mechanical ACD-CPR (Intervention), with AD up to 30 mm above the sternal resting position, would generate better haemodynamic results than standard mechanical CPR (Control).

METHODS

This out-of-hospital adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest trial was prospective, block-randomised and non-blinded. We included intubated patients with capnography recorded during mechanical CPR. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, prisoners, and prior chest surgery. The primary endpoint was maximum tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (p_MTCO₂) and secondary endpoints were oxygen saturation of cerebral tissue (SctO₂), invasive arterial blood pressures and CPR-related injuries. Intervention device lifting force performance was categorised as Complete AD (≥30 Newtons) or Incomplete AD (≤10 Newtons). Haemodynamic data, analysed as one measurement for each parameter per ventilation (Observation Unit, OU) with non-linear regression statistics are reported as mean (standard deviation). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of 221 enrolled patients, 210 were deemed eligible (Control 109, Intervention 101). The Control vs. Intervention results showed no significant differences for p_MTCO₂: 29(17) vs 29(18) mmHg (p = 0.86), blood pressures during compressions: 111(45) vs. 101(68) mmHg (p = 0.93) and decompressions: 21(20) vs. 18(18) mmHg (p = 0.93) or for SctO₂%: 55(36) vs. 57(9) (p = 0.42). The 48 patients who received Complete AD in > 50% of their OUs had higher SctO₂ than Control patients: 58(11) vs. 55(36)% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical ACD-CPR provided similar haemodynamic results to standard mechanical CPR. The Intervention device did not consistently provide Complete AD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02479152. The Haemodynamic Effects of Mechanical Standard and Active Chest Compression-decompression During Out-of-hospital CPR.

Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial

BACKGROUND

Mechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries.

OBJECTIVES

To compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomised trial.

ANIMALS

Eighteen male German landrace pigs.

METHODS

Ventricular fibrillation was induced in anaesthetised and instrumented pigs and the animals were randomised into two intervention groups. Mechanical CPR was initiated by means of LUCAS™ 2 (mCCD1) or Corpuls™ cpr (mCCD2) device. Advanced life support was applied for a maximum of 10 cycles and animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 8 h. Ventilation/perfusion measurements were performed and blood gas analyses were taken. Thoracic injuries were assessed via a standardised damage score.

RESULTS

Five animals of the mCCD1 group and one animal of the mCCD2 group achieved ROSC (p = 0.048). Only the mCCD1 animals survived until the end of the monitoring period (p < 0.01). MCCD1 animals showed less pulmonary shunt (p = 0.025) and higher normal V/Q (p = 0.017) during CPR. MCCD2 animals showed significantly more severe thoracic injuries (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

The LUCAS 2 device shows superior resuscitation outcomes and less thoracic injuries compared to Corpuls cpr when used for experimental CPR in juvenile pigs. Researchers should be aware that different mCCDs for experimental studies may significantly influence the respective outcome of resuscitation studies and affect comparability of different trials. Controlled human and animal CPR studies and a standardised post-resuscitation injury evaluation could help to confirm potential hazards.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial approval number: G16-1-042-E4.

End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) and ventricular fibrillation amplitude spectral area (AMSA) for shock outcome prediction in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Are they two sides of the same coin?

AIM

Ventricular fibrillation amplitude spectral area (AMSA) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂) are predictors of shock success, understood as restoration of an organized rhythm, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). However, little is known about their combined use. We aimed to assess the prediction accuracy when combined, and to clarify if they are correlated in out of hospital cardiac arrest' victims.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Records acquired by external defibrillators in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients of the Lombardia Cardiac Arrest registry were processed. The 1-min pre-shock ETCO₂ median value (METCO₂) was computed from the capnogram and AMSA (2-48 mV.Hz range) computed applying the Fast Fourier Transform to a 2-second pre-shock filtered ECG interval (0.5-30 Hz). Support Vector Machine (SVM) predictive models based on METCO₂, AMSA and their combination were fit; results were given as the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

We considered 112 patients with 391 shocks delivered. METCO₂ and AMSA were predictors of shock success [AUC (IQR) of the ROC curve: 0.59 (0.56-0.62); 0.68 (0.65-0.72), respectively] and of ROSC [0.56 (0.53-0.59); 0.74 (0.71-0.78),]. Their combination in a SVM model increased the accuracy for predicting shock success [AUC (IQR) of the ROC curve: 0.71 (0.68-0.75)] and ROSC [0.77 (0.73-0.8)]. AMSA and METCO₂ were significantly correlated only in patients who achieved ROSC (rho = 0.33 p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

AMSA and ETCO₂ predict shock success and ROSC after every shock, and their predictive power increases if combined. Notably, they were correlated only in patients who achieved ROSC.

Adult Basic Life Support: International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 20 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 3 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review.

Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest.

The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews.

Adult Basic Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

This2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation(CPR)and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendationson basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 22 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 5 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review.

Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest.

The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews.

Lund University Cardiac Assist System Induced Liver Laceration and Anterior Cord Infarction After Cardiac Arrest: A Case Report

We describe a hepatic laceration and subsequent anterior spinal artery syndrome in a 21-year-old man, secondary to prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS2) mechanical cardiac compression device. We briefly review the current literature pertaining to hepatic injury from trauma due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The etiology of the anterior spinal artery syndrome in this patient is discussed. This case highlights that intra-abdominal causes of hypotension should be considered in patients after a prolonged resuscitation attempt. Extending focused cardiac ultrasound to exclude intra-abdominal free fluid should be routinely considered in these patients.

Skeletal and soft tissue injuries after manual and mechanical chest compressions

AIMS

To determine the rate of injuries related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in cardiac arrest non-survivors, comparing manual CPR with CPR performed using the Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively evaluated 414 deceased adult patients using focused, standardized post-mortem investigation in years 2005 through 2013. Skeletal and soft tissue injuries were noted, and soft tissue injuries were evaluated with respect to degree of severity. We found sternal fracture in 38%, rib fracture in 77%, and severe soft tissue injury in 1.9% of cases treated with CPR with manual chest compressions (n = 52). Treatment with LUCAS CPR (n = 362) was associated with significantly higher rates of sternal fracture (80% of cases), rib fracture (96%), and severe soft tissue injury (10%), including several cases of potentially life-threatening injuries.

CONCLUSION

LUCAS CPR causes significantly more CPR-related injuries than manual CPR, while providing no proven survival benefit on a population basis. We suggest judicious use of the LUCAS device for cardiac arrest.

Comparison of hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and LUCAS in a swine model of cardiac arrest

Introduction

Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices are widely used to rescue patients from cardiac arrest. This study aimed to compare hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes between a motor-driven, automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic cardiopulmonary resuscitation device and the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS).

Material and methods

After 2 minutes of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), Yorkshire pigs (weight 35–60 kg) received CPR with an automatic simultaneous sterno-thoracic CPR device (X-CPR group, n = 13) or the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS group, n = 12). Basic life support for 6 minutes and advanced cardiovascular life support for 12 minutes, including defibrillation and epinephrine administration, were provided. Hemodynamic parameters and resuscitation outcomes, including return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 24-hour survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 24 hours, were evaluated.

Results

Hemodynamic parameters, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure were not significantly different between the two groups. Resuscitation outcomes were also not significantly different between the groups (X-CPR vs. LUCAS; rate of ROSC: 31% vs 25%, p = 1.000; 24-hour survival rate: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645; neurological outcome with CPC ≤2: 31% vs 17%, p = 0.645). Also no significant difference in incidence complications associated with resuscitation was found between the groups.

Conclusions

CPR with a motor-driven X-CPR and CPR with the LUCAS produced similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes in a swine model of cardiac arrest.

An observational study on survival rates of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Netherlands after improving the 'chain of survival'

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of implemented procedures for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) by determining patient outcome defined as the percentage return of spontaneous circulation at arrival at the emergency department, and 3-month and 1-year-survival rates.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Primary emergency medical care consisting of Advanced Life Support is given by ambulance nurses and secondary care by hospitals within the mid-western part of the Netherlands covering 750 000 inhabitants.

PARTICIPANTS

433 of 500 consecutive patients with OHCA were included in the study over a 1.5 -year period.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Analysis included number of patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) when handed over to the emergency department, survival at 3 months and 1 year including a comparison with global outcome rates. We further considered the influence of gender, delays, bystander Basic Life Support, use of an automated external defibrillator, initial rhythm and mechanical thorax compression in combination with Boussignac tube ventilation.

RESULTS

13% (67/500) of the initial patient population was excluded from the analysis as reanimation in these patients was aborted due to expressed wish not to be resuscitated. Resuscitation was started by bystanders, police and/or first responders in 312/433 (72%) cases. An automated external defibrillator was used in 198 of these 312 cases (63%) of which it defibrillated 108 times. Mechanical thorax compression in combination with Boussignac tube ventilation was necessary in 277/433 patients (64%). Spontaneous circulation returned in 96/277 (35%) patients of this group. In the overall studied population, ROSC percentage at arrival at the hospital was 214/433 (49%). The 3-month and 12-month-survival rates were 123/433 (28%) and 119/433 (27%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimised 'chain of survival' for patients with OHCA resulted in ROSC in 49% of the cases and a 1-year-survival rate of 27% in the studied population.

LUCAS Versus Manual Chest Compression During Ambulance Transport: A Hemodynamic Study in a Porcine Model of Cardiac Arrest

Background Mechanical chest compression (CC) is currently suggested to deliver sustained high-quality CC in a moving ambulance. This study compared the hemodynamic support provided by a mechanical piston device or manual CC during ambulance transport in a porcine model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods and Results In a simulated urban ambulance transport, 16 pigs in cardiac arrest were randomized to 18 minutes of mechanical CC with the LUCAS (n=8) or manual CC (n=8). ECG, arterial and right atrial pressure, together with end-tidal CO2 and transthoracic impedance curve were continuously recorded. Arterial lactate was assessed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and after resuscitation. During the initial 3 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the ambulance was stationary, while then proceeded along a predefined itinerary. When the ambulance was stationary, CC-generated hemodynamics were equivalent in the 2 groups. However, during ambulance transport, arterial and coronary perfusion pressure, and end-tidal CO2 were significantly higher with mechanical CC compared with manual CC (coronary perfusion pressure: 43±4 versus 18±4 mmHg; end-tidal CO2: 31±2 versus 19±2 mmHg, P<0.01 at 18 minutes). During cardiopulmonary resuscitation, arterial lactate was lower with mechanical CC compared with manual CC (6.6±0.4 versus 8.2±0.5 mmol/L, P<0.01). During transport, mechanical CC showed greater constancy compared with the manual CC, as represented by a higher CC fraction and a lower transthoracic impedance curve variability ( P<0.01). All animals in the mechanical CC group and 6 (75%) in the manual one were successfully resuscitated. Conclusions This model adds evidence in favor of the use of mechanical devices to provide ongoing high-quality CC and tissue perfusion during ambulance transport.

Controversial Issues: Pro Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation, in particular chest compressions, is a key aspect of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation. Manual chest compressions remain the standard of care; however, the extrication and transport of patients with OHCA undermine the quality of manual chest compressions and risk the safety of paramedics. Therefore, in circumstances whereby high-quality manual chest compressions are difficult or unsafe, paramedics should consider using a mechanical device. By combining high-quality manual chest compressions and judicious application of mechanical chest compressions, emergency medical service agencies can optimize paramedic safety and patient outcomes.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

On 19 August 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science databases. Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts and Science Citation abstracts had been searched up to November 2009 for prior versions of this review. We also searched two clinical trials registries for any ongoing trials not captured by our search of databases containing published works: Clinicaltrials.gov (August 2017) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (January 2018). We applied no language restrictions. We contacted experts in the field of mechanical chest compression devices and manufacturers.

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 cardiac arrest.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five new studies in this update. In total, we included 11 trials in the review, including data from 12,944 adult participants, who suffered either out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) or in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We excluded studies explicitly including patients with cardiac arrest caused by trauma, drowning, hypothermia and toxic substances. These conditions are routinely excluded from cardiac arrest intervention studies because they have a different underlying pathophysiology, require a variety of interventions specific to the underlying condition and are known to have a prognosis different from that of cardiac arrest with no obvious cause. The exclusions were meant to reduce heterogeneity in the population while maintaining generalisability to most patients with sudden cardiac death.The overall quality of evidence for the outcomes of included studies was moderate to low due to considerable risk of bias. Three studies (N = 7587) reported on the designated primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of one or two), which had moderate quality evidence. One study showed no difference with mechanical chest compressions (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.39), one study demonstrated equivalence (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.04), and one study demonstrated reduced survival (RR 0.41, CI 0.21 to 0.79). Two other secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission (N = 7224) and survival to hospital discharge (N = 8067), also had moderate quality level of evidence. No studies reported a difference in survival to hospital admission. For survival to hospital discharge, two studies showed benefit, four studies showed no difference, and one study showed harm associated with mechanical compressions. No studies demonstrated a difference in adverse events or injury patterns between comparison groups but the quality of data was low. Marked clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence does not suggest that CPR protocols involving mechanical chest compression devices are superior to conventional therapy involving manual chest compressions only. We conclude on the balance of evidence that mechanical chest compression devices used by trained individuals are a reasonable alternative to manual chest compressions in settings where consistent, high-quality manual chest compressions are not possible or dangerous for the provider (eg, limited rescuers available, prolonged CPR, during hypothermic cardiac arrest, in a moving ambulance, in the angiography suite, during preparation for extracorporeal CPR [ECPR], etc.). Systems choosing to incorporate mechanical chest compression devices should be closely monitored because some data identified in this review suggested harm. Special attention should be paid to minimising time without compressions and delays to defibrillation during device deployment.

Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority

Aims

Mechanical chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with AutoPulse or LUCAS devices has not improved survival from cardiac arrest. Cohort studies suggest risk of excess damage. We studied safety of mechanical CC and determined possible excess damage compared with manual CC.

Methods and results

This is a randomized non-inferiority safety study. Randomization to AutoPulse, LUCAS, or manual CC with corrective depth and rate feedback was performed. We included patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest arriving with manual CPR at the emergency department. The primary outcome was serious or life-threatening visceral resuscitation-related damage, assessed blind by post-mortem computed tomography scan and/or autopsy or by clinical course until discharge. Non-inferiority hypothesis: mechanical CC compared with manual control does not increase the primary outcome by a risk difference of > 10% [upper 95% confidence interval (CI)]. We included 115 patients treated with AutoPulse, 122 with LUCAS, and 137 patients received manual CC. Safety outcome analysis was possible in 337 of 374 (90.1%) included patients. The primary outcome was observed in 12 of 103 AutoPulse patients (11.6%), 8 of 108 LUCAS patients (7.4%), and 8 of 126 controls (6.4%). Rate difference AutoPulse-control: +5.3% (95% CI - 2.2% to 12.8%), P = 0.15. Rate difference LUCAS-control +1.0% (95% CI - 5.5% to 7.6%), P = 0.75.

Conclusion

LUCAS does not cause significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC. For AutoPulse, significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC cannot be excluded.

Mechanical CPR: Who? When? How?

In cardiac arrest, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key determinant of patient survival. However, delivery of effective chest compressions is often inconsistent, subject to fatigue and practically challenging.

Mechanical CPR devices provide an automated way to deliver high-quality CPR. However, large randomised controlled trials of the routine use of mechanical devices in the out-of-hospital setting have found no evidence of improved patient outcome in patients treated with mechanical CPR, compared with manual CPR. The limited data on use during in-hospital cardiac arrest provides preliminary data supporting use of mechanical devices, but this needs to be robustly tested in randomised controlled trials.

In situations where high-quality manual chest compressions cannot be safely delivered, the use of a mechanical device may be a reasonable clinical approach. Examples of such situations include ambulance transportation, primary percutaneous coronary intervention, as a bridge to extracorporeal CPR and to facilitate uncontrolled organ donation after circulatory death.

The precise time point during a cardiac arrest at which to deploy a mechanical device is uncertain, particularly in patients presenting in a shockable rhythm. The deployment process requires interruptions in chest compression, which may be harmful if the pause is prolonged. It is recommended that use of mechanical devices should occur only in systems where quality assurance mechanisms are in place to monitor and manage pauses associated with deployment.

In summary, mechanical CPR devices may provide a useful adjunct to standard treatment in specific situations, but current evidence does not support their routine use.

Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report

INTRODUCTION

Early use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) may improve survival outcomes. Current evidence for such devices uses outcomes from an intention-to-treat (ITT) perspective. We aimed to determine whether early use of mechanical CPR using a LUCAS 2 device results in better outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective, randomised, multicentre study was conducted over one year with LUCAS 2 devices in 14 ambulances and manual CPR in 32 ambulances to manage OHCA. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were survival at 24 hours, discharge from hospital and 30 days.

RESULTS

Of the 1,274 patients recruited, 1,191 were eligible for analysis. 889 had manual CPR and 302 had LUCAS CPR. From an ITT perspective, outcomes for manual and LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 29.2% and 31.1% (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.45; p = 0.537); 24-hour survival 11.2% and 13.2% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81-1.78; p = 0.352); survival to discharge 3.6% and 4.3% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.62-2.33; p = 0.579); and 30-day survival 3.0% and 4.0% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.66-2.64; p = 0.430), respectively. By as-treated analysis, outcomes for manual, early LUCAS and late LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 28.0%, 36.9% and 24.5%; 24-hour survival 10.6%, 15.5% and 8.2%; survival to discharge 2.9%, 5.8% and 2.0%; and 30-day survival 2.4%, 5.8% and 0.0%, respectively. Adjusted OR for survival with early LUCAS vs. manual CPR was 1.47 after adjustment for other variables (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

This study showed a survival benefit with LUCAS CPR as compared to manual CPR only, when the device was applied early on-site.

Military application of mechanical CPR devices: a pressing requirement?

Maintaining high-quality chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation following cardiac arrest presents a challenge. The currently available mechanical CPR (mCPR) devices are described in this review, coupled with an analysis of the evidence pertaining to their efficacy. Overall, mCPR appears to be at least equivalent to high-quality manual CPR in large trials. There is potential utility for mCPR devices in the military context to ensure uninterrupted quality CPR following a medical cardiac arrest. Particular utility may be in a prohibitive operational environment, where manpower is limited or where timelines to definitive care are stretched resulting in a requirement for prolonged resuscitation. mCPR can also act as a bridge to advanced endovascular resuscitation techniques should they become more mainstream therapy.

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.

Survival in ventricular fibrillation with emphasis on the number of defibrillations in relation to other factors at resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Mortality after out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is high and a shockable rhythm is a key predictor of survival. A concomitant need for repeated shocks appears to be associated with less favorable outcome.

AIM

To, among patients found in ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT) describe: (a) factors associated with 30-day survival with emphasis on the number of defibrillatory shocks delivered; (b) the distribution of and the characteristics of patients in relation to the number of defibrillatory shocks that were delivered.

METHODS

Patients who were reported to The Swedish Register for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (SRCR) between January 1 1990 and December 31 2015 and who were found in VF/pVT took part in the survey.

RESULTS

In all there were 19,519 patients found in VF/pVT. The 30-day survival decreased with an increasing number of shocks among all patients regardless of witnessed status and regardless of time period in the survey. In a multivariate analysis there were 12 factors that were associated with the chance of 30-day survival one of which was the number of shocks that was delivered. For each shock that was added the chance of survival decreased. Factors associated with an increased 30-day survival included CPR before arrival of EMS, female sex, cardiac etiology and year of OHCA (increasing survival over years). Factors associated with a decreased chance of 30-day survival included: increasing age, OHCA at home, the use of adrenaline and intubation and an increased delay to CPR, defibrillation and EMS arrival.

CONCLUSION

Among patients found in VF/pVT, 7.5% required more than 10 shocks. For each shock that was added the chance of 30-day survival decreased. There was an increase in 30-day survival over time regardless of the number of shocks. On top of the number of defibrillations, eleven further factors were associated with 30-day survival.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Pattern Evaluation Based on Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition Filter via Nonlinear Approaches

Good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the mainstay of treatment for managing patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Assessment of the quality of the CPR delivered is now possible through the electrocardiography (ECG) signal that can be collected by an automated external defibrillator (AED). This study evaluates a nonlinear approximation of the CPR given to the asystole patients. The raw ECG signal is filtered using ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD), and the CPR-related intrinsic mode functions (IMF) are chosen to be evaluated. In addition, sample entropy (SE), complexity index (CI), and detrended fluctuation algorithm (DFA) are collated and statistical analysis is performed using ANOVA. The primary outcome measure assessed is the patient survival rate after two hours. CPR pattern of 951 asystole patients was analyzed for quality of CPR delivered. There was no significant difference observed in the CPR-related IMFs peak-to-peak interval analysis for patients who are younger or older than 60 years of age, similarly to the amplitude difference evaluation for SE and DFA. However, there is a difference noted for the CI (p < 0.05). The results show that patients group younger than 60 years have higher survival rate with high complexity of the CPR-IMFs amplitude differences.

Mechanical chest compression devices are associated with poor neurological survival in a statewide registry: A propensity score analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare functional survival (discharge cerebral performance category 1 or 2) among victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who had resuscitations performed using mechanical chest compression (mech-CC) devices vs. those using manual chest compressions (man-CC).

METHODS

Observational cohort of 2600 cases of OHCA from a statewide, prospectively-collected cardiac arrest registry (Utah Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival). Comparison of functional survival among those receiving mech-CC vs man-CC was performed using a mixed-effects Poisson model with inverse probability weighted propensity scores to control for selection bias.

RESULTS

Overall, mech-CC was utilized in 405/2600 (16%) of the total arrests in Utah during this period. 371/405 (92%) were of the load-distributing band type (AutoPulse(®)) and 22/405 (5%) were mechanical piston devices (LUCAS™), while 12/405 (3%) employed other devices. The relative risk (RR) for functional survival comparing mech-CC to man-CC after propensity score adjustment was 0.41 (95% CI 0.24-0.70, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical chest compression device use was associated with lower rates of functional survival in this propensity score analysis, controlling for Utstein variables and early return of spontaneous circulation.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation using electrically driven devices: a review

In the treatment of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) immediate resuscitation with chest compressions and ventilation is crucial for survival. As manual resuscitation is associated with several drawbacks, mechanical resuscitation devices have been developed to support resuscitation teams. These devices are able to achieve better perfusion of heart and brain in laboratory settings, but real world experience showed no significant improved survival in comparison to manual resuscitation. This review will focus on two mechanical resuscitation devices, the Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) and AutoPulse devices and the actual literature available. In conclusion, the general use of mechanical resuscitation devices cannot be recommended at the moment.

Comparison of chest compression interruption times across 2 automated devices: a randomized, crossover simulation study

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare chest compression interruption times required to apply, adjust, and remove 2 different automated chest compression (ACC) devices using the same evaluation protocol.

METHODS

Twenty-nine registered nurses and respiratory therapists used 2 ACC devices in separate resuscitation scenarios involving a patient manikin simulating a 45-year-old man in cardiac arrest in his intensive care unit room. Device presentation was randomized, with half of the participants using LUCAS 2 in the first scenario and the other half using AutoPulse in the first scenario.

RESULTS

The mean chest compression interruption time to apply the ACC device to the patient was significantly shorter for AutoPulse (mean [M] = 31.6 ± 8.44) than for LUCAS 2 (M = 39.1 ± 11.20; t(28) = 3.65, P = .001). The mean chest compression interruption time to remove the ACC device from the patient and resume manual compressions was also significantly shorter for AutoPulse (M = 6.5 ± 3.65) than for LUCAS 2 (M = 10.1 ± 3.97; t(26) = 3.36, P = .002). There was no difference in the mean chest compression interruption time to adjust the position of the ACC device on the patient between AutoPulse (M = 14.3 ± 5.24) and LUCAS 2 (M = 12.5 ± 3.89; t(23) = -1.45, P = .162).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study trended in favor of AutoPulse. However, the interruption in chest compression to apply either device to the patient was notably longer than the maximum interruption time recommended by the American Heart Association.

A Review of Carbon Dioxide Monitoring During Adult Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Although high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation is one of the most significant factors related to favourable outcome, its quality depends on many components, such as airway management, compression depth and chest recoil, hands-off time, and early defibrillation. The most common way of controlling the resuscitation efforts is monitoring of end-tidal carbon dioxide. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation suggests this method both for in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, despite the abundant human and animal studies supporting the usefulness of end-tidal carbon dioxide, its optimal values during cardiopulmonary resuscitation remain controversial. In this review, the advantages and effectiveness of end-tidal carbon dioxide during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are discussed and specific target values are suggested based on the available literature.

Capnography during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Current evidence and future directions

Capnography continues to be an important tool in measuring expired carbon dioxide (CO₂). Most recent Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines now recommend using capnography to ascertain the effectiveness of chest compressions and duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Based on an extensive review of available published literature, we selected all available peer-reviewed research investigations and case reports. Available evidence suggests that there is significant correlation between partial pressure of end-tidal CO₂ (PETCO₂) and cardiac output that can indicate the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Additional evidence favoring the use of capnography during CPR includes definitive proof of correct placement of the endotracheal tube and possible prediction of patient survival following cardiac arrest, although the latter will require further investigations. There is emerging evidence that PETCO₂ values can guide the initiation of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in refractory cardiac arrest (RCA). There is also increasing recognition of the value of capnography in intensive care settings in intubated patients. Future directions include determining the outcomes based on capnography waveforms PETCO₂ values and determining a reasonable duration of CPR. In the future, given increasing use of capnography during CPR large databases can be analyzed to predict outcomes.

[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 cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Although modern cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) substantially decreases the mortality induced by cardiac arrest, cardiac arrest still accounts for over 50% of deaths caused by cardiovascular diseases. In this article, we address the current use of mechanical devices during CPR, and also compare the CPR quality between manual and mechanical chest compression.

METHODS

We compared the quality and survival rate between manual and mechanical CPR, and then reviewed the mechanical CPR in special circumstance, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, transportation, and other fields.

RESULTS

Compared with manual compression, mechanical compression can often be done correctly, and thus can compromise survival; can provide high quality chest compressions in a moving ambulance; enhance the flow of blood back to the heart via a rhythmic constriction of the veins; allow ventilation and CPR to be performed simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical devices will be widely used in clinical practice so as to improve the quality of CPR in patients with cardiac arrest.

Passive leg raise (PLR) during cardiopulmonary (CPR) - a method article on a randomised study of survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that about 275,000 inhabitants experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) every year in Europe. Survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is relatively low, generally between five per cent and 10%. Being able to explore new methods to improve the relatively low survival rate is vital for people with these conditions. Passive leg raise (PLR) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been found to improve cardiac preload and blood flow during chest compressions. The aim of our study is to evaluate whether early PLR during CPR also has an impact on one-month survival in sudden and unexpected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

METHOD/DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial in which all patients (≥18 years) receiving out-of hospital CPR are randomized by envelope to be treated with either PLR or in the flat position. The ambulance crew use a special folding stool which allows the legs to be elevated about 20 degrees. Primary end-point: survival to one month. Secondary end-point: survival to hospital admission to one month and to one year with acceptable cerebral performance classification (CPC) 1-2.

DISCUSSION

PLR is a simple and fast maneuver. We believe that the greatest benefit with PLR is when performed early in the process, during the first minutes of CPR and before the first defibrillation. To reach power this study need 3000 patients, we hope that this method article will encourage other sites to contact us and take part in our study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952197.

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.

Automatic chest compression devices--when do they make sense?

The current resuscitation guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council do not include automatic chest compression devices (ACDs) as standard equipment to support cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts. One possible reason could be the lack of a list of indications and contraindications for the use of ACD systems. This review should give a summary of current studies and developments according to ACD systems and deliver a list of possible applications. Furthermore, we discuss some ethical problems with cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts and, in particular, with ACD systems. The use of ACDs occurs instead of manual chest compression. Because of this, there is no reason for changing the current guidelines, especially termination recommendations while using ACD systems. From our point of view, ACDs are a very good supplement to the current standard of resuscitation according to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines.