Update on mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices

Computed Tomographic Findings of Injuries After Mechanical and Manual Resuscitation: A Retrospective Study

Introduction

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)-related injuries are complications of chest compressions during CPR. This study aimed to investigate the differences and complications between mechanical and manual CPR techniques by using computed tomography (CT).

Methods

Patients in whom return of spontaneous circulation was achieved after CPR and thorax CT imaging were performed for diagnostic purposes were included in the study.

Results

A total of 178 non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients were successfully resuscitated and had CT scans in the emergency department. The complications of CPR are sternum fracture, rib fracture, pleural effusion/hemothorax, and pneumothorax. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of age, first complaint, cardiac arrest rhythm, CPR duration, and complications between mechanical and manual CPR. The number of exitus in the emergency department was similar (p=0.638). The discharge from hospital rate was higher in the mechanical CPR group but there was no statistically significant difference (p=0.196). The duration of CPR was associated with the number of rib fractures and lung contusion, but it did not affect other CPR-related chest injuries.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference observed in terms of increased complications in patients who received mechanical compression as compared with those who received manual compression. According to our results, mechanical compression does not cause serious complications, and the discharge from hospital rate was higher than for manual CPR; therefore, its use should be encouraged.

Comparison of the effectiveness of endotracheal tube holder with the conventional method in a manikin model

OBJECTIVES:

Endotracheal tube (ETT) displacement occurs by improper fixation. To fix an ETT, many types of fixation tools are employed. Thomas tube holder is one of the fixation tools widely used in many countries. This study aims to compare the ETT fixation using the Thomas tube holder with the conventional method (adhesive tape) in a mannequin model.

METHODS:

The fixation tools were random, using the box of six randomizes to Thomas tube holder and conventional method. After fixation, the mannequin model was being logged roll, chest compression by automated chest compression machine, and transported by the paramedic. The time to ETT fixation and displacements were recorded.

RESULTS:

The mean time (standard deviation) to fixate an ETT was shorter (33.0 s [7.3]) with a Thomas tube holder compared to adhesive tape (52.6 s [7.3], P < 0.001). The number and proportion of the ETT displacements were significantly less with Thomas tube holder compared to adhesive tape during log roll (16, 35.6% vs. 29, 64.4%, P = 0.011), chest compression with automated machine (23, 51.1% vs. 37, 82.2%, P = 0.003), and transport (26, 57.8% vs. 40, 88.9%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION:

The Thomas tube holder is more effective than adhesive tape in preventing ETT displacement in a mannequin subjected to log roll, chest compressions, and transportation.

Mechanical chest compression devices in the helicopter emergency medical service in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Over the past years, several emergency medical service providers have introduced mechanical chest compression devices (MCDs) in their protocols for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Especially in helicopter emergency medical systems (HEMS), which have limitations regarding loading weight and space and typically operate in rural and remote areas, whether MCDs have benefits for patients is still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of MCDs in a large Swiss HEMS system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of all HEMS missions of Swiss Air rescue Rega between January 2014 and June 2016 with the use of an MCD (Autopulse®). Details of MCD use and patient outcome are reported from the medical operation journals and the hospitals' discharge letters.

RESULTS

MCDs were used in 626 HEMS missions, and 590 patients (94%) could be included. 478 (81%) were primary missions and 112 (19%) were interhospital transfers. Forty-nine of the patients in primary missions were loaded under ongoing CPR with MCDs. Of the patients loaded after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 20 (7%) experienced a second CA during the flight. In interhospital transfers, 102 (91%) only needed standby use of the MCD. Five (5%) patients were loaded into the helicopter with ongoing CPR. Five (5%) patients went into CA during flight and the MCD had to be activated. A shockable cardiac arrhythmia was the only factor significantly associated with better survival in resuscitation missions using MCD (OR 0.176, 95% confidence interval 0.084 to 0.372, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that equipping HEMS with MCDs may be beneficial, with non-trauma patients potentially benefitting more than trauma patients.

Noninvasive estimation of assist pressure for direct mechanical ventricular actuation

Direct mechanical ventricular actuation is effective to reestablish the ventricular function with non-blood contact. Due to the energy loss within the driveline of the direct cardiac compression device, it is necessary to acquire the accurate value of assist pressure acting on the heart surface. To avoid myocardial trauma induced by invasive sensors, the noninvasive estimation method is developed and the experimental device is designed to measure the sample data for fitting the estimation models. By examining the goodness of fit numerically and graphically, the polynomial model presents the best behavior among the four alternative models. Meanwhile, to verify the effect of the noninvasive estimation, the simplified lumped parameter model is utilized to calculate the pre-support and the post-support left ventricular pressure. Furthermore, by adjusting the driving pressure beyond the range of the sample data, the assist pressure is estimated with the similar waveform and the post-support left ventricular pressure approaches the value of the adult healthy heart, indicating the good generalization ability of the noninvasive estimation method.

Extracorporeal Life Support and New Therapeutic Strategies for Cardiac Arrest Caused by Acute Myocardial Infarction - a Critical Approach for a Critical Condition

This review summarizes the most recent developments in providing advanced supportive measures for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the results obtained using these new therapies in patients with cardiac arrest caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Also detailed are new approaches such as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), intra-arrest percutaneous coronary intervention, or the regional models for systems of care aiming to reduce the critical times from cardiac arrest to initiation of ECPR and coronary revascularization.

CPR using the lifeline ARM mechanical chest compression device: a randomized, crossover, manikin trial

INTRODUCTION

European Resuscitation Council as well as American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) stress the importance of uninterrupted and effective chest compressions (CCs). Manual CPR decreases in quality of CCs over time because of fatigue which impacts outcome. We report the first study with the Lifeline ARM automated CC device for providing uninterrupted CCs.

METHODS

Seventy-eight paramedics participated in this randomized, crossover, manikin trial. We compared the fraction of effective CCs between manual CPR and automated CPR using the ARM.

RESULTS

Using the ARM during resuscitation resulted in a higher percentage of effective CCs (100/min [interquartile range, 99-100]) compared with manual CCs (43/min [interquartile range, 39-46]; P<.001). The number of effective CCs decreased less over time with the ARM (P<.001), more often reached the required depth of 5 cm (97% vs 63%, P<.001), and more often reached the recommended CC rate (P<.001). The median tidal volume was higher and hands-off time was lower when using the ARM.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical CCs in our study adhere more closely to current guidelines than manual CCs. The Lifeline ARM provides more effective CCs, more ventilation time and minute volume, less hands-off time, and less decrease in effective CCs over time compared with manual Basic Life Support and might therefore impact outcome.