Outcomes after mechanical versus manual chest compressions in eCPR patients

Liver Hemorrhage Following Mechanical CPR With the Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) Device: A Focused Case Report

Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of mortality globally, and mechanical CPR devices like the LUCAS system are designed to improve outcomes by enhancing consistency and reducing rescuer fatigue. However, this case report of a 76-year-old female who suffered cardiac arrest post-flight reveals significant complications associated with mechanical CPR. Despite achieving initial resuscitation, she developed extensive liver damage and additional complications, which ultimately led to her death. This case underscores the importance of precise training and strict adherence to guidelines when using mechanical CPR devices. It highlights that while these devices offer potential benefits, they also pose risks, especially for vulnerable patients, necessitating careful consideration and ongoing evaluation to optimize safety and effectiveness.

Optimal chest compression for cardiac arrest until the establishment of ECPR: Secondary analysis of the SAVE-J II study

INTRODUCTION

The widespread incorporation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires the delivery of effective and high-quality chest compressions prior to the initiation of ECPR. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of mechanical and manual chest compressions until the initiation of ECPR.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of the Japanese retrospective multicenter registry "Study of Advanced Life Support for Ventricular Fibrillation by Extracorporeal Circulation II (SAVE-J II)". Patients were divided into two groups, one receiving mechanical chest compressions and the other receiving manual chest compressions. The primary outcome measure was mortality at hospital discharge, while the secondary outcome was the cerebral performance category (CPC) score at discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 2157 patients enrolled in the SAVE-J II trial, 453 patients (329 in the manual compression group and 124 in the mechanical compression group) were included in the final analysis. Univariate analysis showed a significantly higher mortality rate at hospital discharge in the mechanical compression group compared to the manual compression group (odds ratio [95% CI] = 2.32 [1.34-4.02], p = 0.0026). Multivariate analysis showed that mechanical chest compressions were an independent factor associated with increased mortality at hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI] = 2.00 [1.11-3.58], p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in CPC between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest who require ECPR, extreme caution should be used when performing mechanical chest compressions.

Rib fractures and other injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for non-traumatic cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to ascertain the prevalence of rib fractures and other injuries resulting from CPR and to compare manual with mechanically assisted CPR. An additional aim was to summarize the literature on surgical treatment for rib fractures following CPR.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline Ovid, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

The databases were searched to identify studies reporting on CPR-related injuries in patients who underwent chest compressions for a non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest. Subgroup analysis was conducted to compare the prevalence of CPR-related injuries in manual versus mechanically assisted chest compressions. Studies reporting on surgery for CPR-related rib fractures were also reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Seventy-four studies reporting CPR-related injuries were included encompassing a total of 16,629 patients. Any CPR-related injury was documented in 60% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 49-71) patients. Rib fractures emerged as the most common injury, with a pooled prevalence of 55% (95% CI 48-62). Mechanically assisted CPR, when compared to manual CPR, was associated with a higher risk ratio for CPR-related injuries of 1.36 (95% CI 1.17-1.59). Eight studies provided information on surgical stabilization of CPR-related rib fractures. The primary indication for surgery was the inability to wean from mechanical ventilation in the presence of multiple rib fractures.

CONCLUSION

Rib fractures and other injuries frequently occur in patients who undergo CPR after a non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, especially when mechanical CPR is administered. Surgical stabilization of CPR-related rib fractures remains relatively uncommon.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Left rib fractures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are associated with hemodynamic variations in a pig model of cardiac arrest

Background

Chest compressions (CC) are the cornerstone of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). But CC are also known to cause injuries, specifically rib fractures. The effects of such fractures have not been examined yet. This study aimed to investigate hemodynamic effects of rib fractures during mechanical CPR in a porcine model of cardiac arrest (CA).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective hemodynamic study in 31 pigs that underwent mechanical CC. Animals were divided into three groups based on the location of rib fractures: No Broken Ribs group (n = 11), Left Broken Ribs group (n = 13), and Right Broken Ribs group (n = 7). Hemodynamic measurements were taken at 10 seconds before and 10, 30, and 60 seconds after rib fractures.

Results

Baseline hemodynamic parameters did not differ between the three groups. Systolic aortic pressure was overall higher in the Left Broken Ribs group than in the No Broken Ribs group at 10, 30, and 60 seconds after rib fracture (p = 0.02, 0.01, and 0.006, respectively). The Left Broken Ribs group had a significantly higher right atrial pressure compared to the No Broken Rib group after rib fracture (p = 0.02, 0.01, and 0.03, respectively). There was no significant difference for any parameter for the Right Broken Ribs group, when compared to the No Broken Ribs group.

Conclusion

An increase in main hemodynamic parameters was observed after left rib fractures while right broken ribs were not associated with any change in hemodynamic parameters. Reporting fractures and their location seems worthwhile for future experimental studies.