Feasibility of Biosignal-guided Chest Compression During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Proof of Concept

Injury characteristics and hemodynamics associated with guideline-compliant CPR in a pediatric porcine cardiac arrest model

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for depth of chest compressions in pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are based on sparse evidence.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the performance of the two most widely recommended chest compression depth levels for pediatric CPR (1.5 in. and 1/3 the anterior-posterior diameter- APd) in a controlled swine model of asphyxial cardiac arrest.

METHODS

We executed a 2-group, randomized laboratory study with an adaptive design allowing early termination for overwhelming injury or benefit. Forty mixed-breed domestic swine (mean weight = 26 kg) were sedated, anesthetized and paralyzed along with endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Asphyxial cardiac arrest was induced with fentanyl overdose. Animals were untreated for 9 min followed by mechanical CPR with a target depth of 1.5 in. or 1/3 the APd. Advanced life support drugs were administered IV after 4 min of basic resuscitation followed by defibrillation at 14 min. The primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hemodynamics and CPR-related injury severity.

RESULTS

Enrollment in the 1/3 APd group was stopped early due to overwhelming differences in injury. Twenty-three animals were assigned to the 1.5 in. group and 15 assigned to the 1/3 APd group, per an adaptive group design. The 1/3 APd group had increased frequency of rib fracture (6.7 vs 1.7, p < 0.001) and higher proportions of several anatomic injury markers than the 1.5 in. group, including sternal fracture, hemothorax and blood in the endotracheal tube (p < 0.001). ROSC and hemodynamic measures were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In this pediatric model of cardiac arrest, chest compressions to 1/3APd were more harmful without a concurrent benefit for resuscitation outcomes compared to the 1.5 in. compression group.

Synchronized Chest Compressions for Pseudo-PEA: Proof of Concept and a Synching Algorithm

Objective: The two objectives of this report are: first, to describe a comparison of chest compressions unsynchronized or synchronized to native cardiac activity in a porcine model of hypotension, and second, to develop an algorithm to provide synchronized chest compressions throughout a range of native heart rates likely to be encountered when treating PEA cardiac arrest. Methods: We adapted our previously developed signal-guided CPR system to provide compressions synchronized to native electrical activity in a porcine model of hypotension as a surrogate of PEA arrest. We describe the first comparison of unsynchronized to synchronized compressions in a single animal as a proof-of-concept. We developed an algorithm to provide optimal synchronized chest compressions regardless of intrinsic PEA heart rate while simultaneously maintaining the chest compression rate within a desired range. We tested the algorithm with computer simulations measuring the proportion of intrinsic and compression beats that were synchronized, and the compression rate and its standard deviation, as a function of intrinsic heart rate and heart rate jitter. Results: We demonstrate and compare unsynchronized versus synchronized chest compressions in a single porcine model with an intrinsic rhythm and hypotension. Synchronized, but not unsynchronized, chest compressions were associated with increased blood pressure and coronary perfusion pressure. Our synchronized chest compression algorithm is able to provide synchronized chest compressions to over 90% of intrinsic beats for most heart rates while maintaining an average compression rate between 90 and 140 compressions per minute with relatively low variability. Conclusions: Synchronized chest compression therapy for pulseless electrical rhythms is feasible. A high degree of synchronization can be maintained over a broad range of intrinsic heart rates while maintaining the compression rate within a satisfactory range. Further investigation to assess benefit for treatment of PEA is warranted.

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.