Mechanical chest compressions in the coronary catheterization laboratory to facilitate coronary intervention and survival in patients requiring prolonged resuscitation efforts

Post-Cardiac Arrest Care

A structured approach to postcardiac arrest care is needed. Although immediate goals include obtaining a blood pressure reading and ECG immediately after return of spontaneous circulation, other more advanced goals include minimizing CNS injury, managing cardiovascular dysfunction, reducing systemic ischemic/reperfusion injury, and identifying and treating the underlying cause to the arrest. This article summarizes the current understanding of the hemodynamic, neurologic, and metabolic abnormalities encountered in postarrest patients.

Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in "hostile" environments: Using automated compression devices to minimize the rescuers' danger

Mechanical automated compression devices are being used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation instead of manual, "hands-on", rescuer-delivered chest compressions. The -theoretical- advantages include high-quality non-stop compressions, thus freeing the rescuer performing the compressions and additionally the ability of the rescuer to stand reasonably away from a potentially "hazardous" victim, or from hazardous and/or difficult resuscitation conditions. Such circumstances involve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, especially directly under the fluoroscopy panel, where radiation is well known to cause detrimental effects to the rescuer, and CPR during/after land or air transportation of cardiac arrest victims. Lastly, CPR in a coronavirus disease 2019 patient/ward, where the danger of contamination and further serious illness of the health provider is very existent. The scope of this review is to review and present literature and current guidelines regarding the use of mechanical compressions in these "hostile" and dangerous settings, while comparing them to manual compressions.

Patient characteristics and survival outcomes of cardiac arrest in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Insights from get with the Guidelines®-Resuscitation registry

BACKGROUND

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) have not been well-described. Thus, we compared the outcomes of patients with an IHCA in the CCL versus those in the intensive care unit (ICU) and operating rooms (OR).

METHODS

Within the American Heart Association's Get With the Guidelines®-Resuscitation registry, we identified patients ≥ 18 years old with IHCA in the CCL, ICU, or OR between 2000-2019. Using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression, we compared rates of survival to discharge for patients with IHCA in the CCL versus ICU and OR.

RESULTS

Across 428 hospitals, 193,950 patients had IHCA, of whom 6865, 181,905 and 5180 were in the CCL, ICU and OR, respectively. Overall, 2614 (38.1%) patients with IHCA in the CCL survived to discharge, whereas 30,830 (16.9%) and 2096 (40.5%) survived to discharge from the ICU and OR, respectively. After adjustment, patients with IHCA in CCL were more likely to survive to discharge as compared to those with IHCA in the ICU (odds ratio, 1.37 [95%CI: 1.29-1.46], p < 0.001). In contrast, those who had IHCA in the CCL were less likely to survive to discharge as compared to patients with IHCA in the OR (odds ratio, 0.81 [95%CI: 0.69-0.94], p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

IHCA in the CCL is not uncommon and has a lower survival rate when compared with IHCA in the OR. The reasons for this difference deserve further study given that cardiac arrest in both settings is witnessed and response time should be similar.

Efficacy of AutoPulse for Mechanical Chest Compression in Patients with Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Sudden cardiac arrest is one of the most common causes of death. In cases of shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation, immediate transport of patients to the hospital is essential and made possible with use of devices for mechanical chest compression.

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy of AutoPulse in patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation was studied.

METHODS

This is a multicentre observational study on a population of 480,000, with 192 reported cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The study included patients with shock-resistant ventricular fibrillation defined as cardiac arrest secondary to ventricular fibrillation requiring ≥3 consecutive shocks. Eventually, 18 patients met the study criteria.

RESULTS

The mean duration of resuscitation was 48.4±43 min, 55% of patients were handed over to the laboratory while still in cardiac arrest, 83.3% of them underwent angiography and, in 93.3% of them, infarction was confirmed. Coronary intervention was continued during mechanical resuscitation in 50.0% of patients, 60% of patients survived the procedure, and 27.8% of the patients survived.

CONCLUSIONS

Resistant ventricular fibrillation suggests high likelihood of a coronary component to the cardiac arrest. AutoPulse is helpful in conducting resuscitation, allowing the time to arrival at hospital to be reduced.

The role of automated compression devices in out-of- and in- hospital cardiac arrest. Can we spare rescuers’ hands?

Research regarding the use of mechanical compressions in the setting of a cardiac arrest, either outside of or inside the hospital environment has produced mixed results. The debate whether they can replace manual compressions still remains. The aim of this review is to present current literature contemplating the application of mechanical compressions in both settings, data comparing them to manual compressions as well as current guidelines regarding their implementation in everyday clinical use. Currently, their implementation in the resuscitation protocol seems to benefit the victims of an in-hospital cardiac arrest rather than the victims that sustain a cardiac arrest outside of the hospital.

ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

5-10% of ST-elevated myocardial infarctions (STEMI) present with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Although this subgroup of patients carries the highest in-hospital mortality among the STEMI population, it is the least likely to undergo coronary angiography and revascularization. Due to the concomitant neurologic injury, patients with OHCA STEMI require prolonged hospitalization and adjustments to standard MI management. This review systematically assesses the course of patients with OHCA STEMI from development of the arrest to hospital discharge, assesses the limiting factors for their treatment access, and presents the evidence-based optimal intervention strategy for this high-risk MI population.

[CME: Mechanical Assist Devices in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation]

CME: Mechanical Assist Devices in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Abstract. Early high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event of a cardiac arrest is the most effective measure to improve the outcome. With the aim of improving the quality of resuscitation and replacing the need of manual compression, various mechanical assist devices have been developed and are used in the clinical practice. When should they be used, whether do they lead to better outcomes and what injuries are they associated with? These questions have been examined in several studies and the following review will provide an overview.

Cardiac Arrest in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Combining Mechanical Chest Compressions and Percutaneous LV Assistance

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal treatment approach for cardiac arrest (CA) occurring in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

BACKGROUND

CA can occur in the cath lab during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. While attempting to correct the precipitating cause of CA, several options are available to maintain vital organ perfusion. These include manual chest compressions, mechanical chest compressions, or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device.

METHODS

Eighty swine (58 ± 10 kg) were studied. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery was occluded. Ventricular fibrillation (VFCA) was induced and circulatory support was provided with 1 of 4 techniques: either manual chest compressions (frequently interrupted), mechanical chest compressions with a piston device (LUCAS-2), an Impella 2.5 L percutaneously placed LVAD, or the combination of mechanical chest compressions and the percutaneous left ventricular assist device. The study protocol included 12 min of left main coronary occlusion, reperfusion, with defibrillation attempted after 15 min of VFCA. Primary outcome was favorable neurological function (CPC 1 or 2) at 24 h, while secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation and hemodynamics.

RESULTS

Manual chest compressions provided fewer neurologically intact surviving animals than the combination of a mechanical chest compressor and a percutaneous LVAD device (0% vs. 56%; p < 0.01), while no difference was found between the 2 mechanical approaches (28% vs. 35%: p = 0.75). Comparing integrated coronary perfusion pressure showed sequential improvement in hemodynamic support with mechanical devices (401 ± 230 vs. 1,337 ± 905 mm Hg/s; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining 2 mechanical devices provided superior 24-h survival with favorable neurological recovery compared with manual compressions during moderate duration VFCA associated with an acute coronary occlusion in the animal catheterization laboratory.

Bedside ultrasound in cardiac standstill: a clinical review

Patients with cardiac arrest present as a relatively frequent occurrence in the Emergency Department. Despite the advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of cardiac arrest, managing the condition remains a stressful endeavor and currently implemented interventions, while beneficial, are still associated with a disappointingly low survivability. The majority of modern Advanced Life Support algorithms employ a standardized approach to best resuscitate the 'crashed' patient. However, management during resuscitation often encourages a 'one-size-fits-all' policy for most patients, with lesser attention drawn towards causality of the disease and factors that could alter resuscitative care. Life support providers are also often challenged by the limited bedside predictors of survival to guide the course and duration of resuscitation. Over the recent decades, point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) has been gradually proving itself as a useful adjunct that could potentially bridge the gap in the recognition and evaluation of precipitants and end-points in resuscitation, thereby facilitating an improved approach to resuscitation of the arrested patient. Point-of-care ultrasound applications in the critical care field have tremendously evolved over the past four decades. Today, bedside ultrasound is a fundamental tool that is quick, safe, inexpensive and reproducible. Not only can it provide the physician with critical information on reversible causes of arrest, but it can also be used to predict survival. Of note is its utility in predicting worse survival outcomes in patients with cardiac standstill, i.e., no cardiac activity witnessed with ultrasound. Unfortunately, despite the increasing evidence surrounding ultrasound use in arrest, bedside ultrasound is still largely underutilized during the resuscitation process. This article reviews the current literature on cardiac standstill and the application of bedside ultrasound in cardiac arrests.

In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Effective Transition from an ICU- to CCU-Led Resuscitation Team

Objectives

(1) To examine the incidence and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrests (IHCAs) in a large unselected patient population who underwent coronary angiography at a single tertiary academic center and (2) to evaluate a transitional change in which the cardiologist is positioned as the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) leader in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) at our local tertiary care institution.

Background

IHCA is a major public health concern with increased patient morbidity and mortality. A proportion of all IHCAs occurs in the CCL. Although in-hospital resuscitation teams are often led by an Intensive Care Unit- (ICU-) trained physician and house staff, little is known on the role of a cardiologist in this setting.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2016, a single-center retrospective cohort study was performed examining 63 adult patients (70 ± 10 years, 60% males) who suffered from a cardiac arrest in the CCL. The ICU-led IHCAs included 19 patients, and the Coronary Care Unit- (CCU-) led IHCAs included 44 patients.

Results

Acute coronary syndrome accounted for more than 50% of cardiac arrests in the CCL. Pulseless electrical activity was the most common rhythm requiring chest compression, and cardiogenic shock most frequently initiated a code blue response. No significant differences were observed between the ICU-led and CCU-led cardiac arrests in terms of hospital length of stay and 1-year survival rate.

Conclusion

In the evolving field of Critical Care Cardiology, the transition from an ICU-led to a CCU-lead code blue team in the CCL setting may lead to similar short-term and long-term outcomes.

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.

Mechanical chest compressions for cardiac arrest in the cath-lab: when is it enough and who should go to extracorporeal cardio pulmonary resuscitation?

BACKGROUND

Treating patients in cardiac arrest (CA) with mechanical chest compressions (MCC) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is now routine in many coronary catheterization laboratories (cath-lab) and more aggressive treatment modalities, including extracorporeal CPR are becoming more common. The cath-lab setting enables monitoring of vital physiological parameters and other clinical factors that can potentially guide the resuscitation effort. This retrospective analysis attempts to identify such factors associated with ROSC and survival.

METHODS

In thirty-five patients of which background data, drugs used during the resuscitation and the intervention, PCI result, post ROSC-treatment and physiologic data collected during CPR were compared for prediction of ROSC and survival.

RESULTS

Eighteen (51%) patients obtained ROSC and 9 (26%) patients survived with good neurological outcome. There was no difference between groups in regards of background data. Patients arriving in the cath-lab with ongoing resuscitation efforts had lower ROSC rate (22% vs 53%; p = 0.086) and no survivors (0% vs 50%, p = 0.001). CPR time also differentiated resuscitation outcomes (ROSC: 18 min vs No ROSC: 50 min; p = 0.007 and Survivors: 10 min vs No Survivors: 45 min; p = 0.001). Higher arterial diastolic blood pressure was associated with ROSC: 30 mmHg vs No ROSC: 19 mmHg; p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Aortic diastolic pressure during CPR is the most predictive physiological parameter of resuscitation success. Ongoing CPR upon arrival at the cath-lab and continued MCC beyond 10-20 min in the cath-lab were both predictive of poor outcomes. These factors can potentially guide decisions regarding escalation and termination of resuscitation efforts.

The Evolving Role of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory in the Management of Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Coronary artery disease is prevalent in different causes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), especially in individuals presenting with shockable rhythms of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pVT). The purpose of this report is to review the known prevalence and potential importance of coronary artery disease in patients with OHCA and to describe the emerging paradigm of treatment with advanced perfusion/reperfusion techniques and their potential benefits on the basis of available evidence. Although randomized clinical trials are planned or ongoing, current scientific evidence rests principally on observational case series with their potential confounding selection bias. Among patients resuscitated from VF/pVT OHCA with ST-segment elevation on their postresuscitation ECG, the prevalence of coronary artery disease has been shown to be 70% to 85%. More than 90% of these patients have had successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Conversely, among patients resuscitated from VF/pVT OHCA without ST-segment elevation on their postresuscitation ECG, the prevalence of coronary artery disease has been shown to be 25% to 50%. For these patients, early access to the cardiac catheterization laboratory is associated with a 10% to 15% absolute higher functionally favorable survival rate compared with more conservative approaches of late or no access to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. In patients with VF/pVT OHCA refractory to standard treatment, a new treatment paradigm is also emerging that uses venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to facilitate return of normal perfusion and to support further resuscitation efforts, including coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. The burden of coronary artery disease is high in this patient population, presumably causative in most patients. The strategy of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention has resulted in functionally favorable survival rates ranging from 9% to 45% in observational studies in this patient population. Patients with VF/pVT should be considered at the highest severity in the continuum of acute coronary syndromes. These patients have a significant burden of coronary artery disease and acute coronary thrombotic events. Evidence from randomized trials will further define optimal clinical practice.

Evolving Strategies in Cardiac Arrest Management

Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death in the United States, with a hospital discharge rate of approximately 10%. International resuscitation guidelines offer standardized cardiac arrest management approaches, but beyond the guidelines, are promising innovations to improve resuscitative care. Although clinical data do not yet support the routine use of mechanical chest compressions, corticosteroids, thrombolytics, and adjunctive ventilation devices during arrest, these therapies may have an important role in select patients. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a promising advancement and may have survival benefit in select patients. The evidence for standard therapies and these innovations is discussed.

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.

Cardiac Arrest in the Catheterization Laboratory

BACKGROUND

Cardiac arrest in the Catheterization Lab is a rare and unique scenario that is often logistically challenging. It often has dire prognosis especially in patients suffering from severe pre-existing illnesses (high risk patient) such as acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, or patients undergoing high risk procedures. As the number of complex interventional procedures increases, cardiac arrest in the cath lab will become more common and optimal management of this scenario is critical for both the patient and operator.

CONCLUSION

In this review, we will discuss the special challenges during the resuscitation efforts in cath lab, especially with tradition chest compression. We will discuss the alternative options including mechanical compression devices and Invasive Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices. Finally, we will offer management suggestions on selecting the appropriate circulatory support device based on clinical and anatomic risks.

Assessing practical skills in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Discrepancy between standard visual evaluation and a mechanical feedback device

This paper aims to analyze agreement in the assessment of external chest compressions (ECC) by 3 human raters and dedicated feedback software.While 54 volunteer health workers (medical transport technicians), trained and experienced in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), performed a complete sequence of basic CPR maneuvers on a manikin incorporating feedback software (Laerdal PC v 4.2.1 Skill Reporting Software) (L), 3 expert CPR instructors (A, B, and C) visually assessed ECC, evaluating hand placement, compression depth, chest decompression, and rate. We analyzed the concordance among the raters (A, B, and C) and between the raters and L with Cohen's kappa coefficient (K), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, and survival-agreement plots.The agreement (expressed as Cohen's K and ICC) was ≥0.54 in only 3 instances and was ≤0.45 in more than half. Bland-Altman plots showed significant dispersion of the data. The survival-agreement plot showed a high degree of discordance between pairs of raters (A-L, B-L, and C-L) when the level of tolerance was set low.In visual assessment of ECC, there is a significant lack of agreement among accredited raters and significant dispersion and inconsistency in data, bringing into question the reliability and validity of this method of measurement.

Mechanical chest compressions in the coronary catheterization laboratory - do not hesitate to go step further!

Authors Wagner et al. in your journal demonstrated effectiveness of mechanical chest compressions in the coronary catheterization laboratory to facilitate coronary intervention and survival in patients requiring prolonged resuscitation efforts. We dare to comment on this article and advocate to use mechanical chest compressions only as a bridge to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to completely substitute failed circulation and enable percutaneous coronary intervention or other procedures to treat the cause of cardiac arrest.