Mechanical chest-compression devices: current and future roles.
ABSTRACT It is recognized that the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important predictor of outcome from cardiac arrest yet studies consistently demonstrate that the quality of CPR performed in real life is frequently sub-optimal. Mechanical chest-compression devices provide an alternative to manual CPR. This review will consider the evidence and current indications for the use of these devices.
Physiological and animal data suggest that mechanical chest-compression devices are more effective than manual CPR. However, there is no high quality evidence showing improved outcomes in humans. There are specific circumstances where it may not be possible to perform manual CPR effectively for example, during ambulance transport to hospital, en-route to and during cardiac catheterization, prior to organ donation and during diagnostic imaging where using these devices may be advantageous.
There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of mechanical chest-compression devices. There may be specific circumstances when CPR is difficult or impossible where mechanical devices may play an important role in maintaining circulation. There is an urgent need for definitive clinical and cost effectiveness trials to confirm or refute the place of mechanical chest-compression devices during resuscitation.
Article: Resuscitation highlights in 2011.Resuscitation 01/2012; 83(1):1-6. · 4.10 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective. To examine injuries produced by chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who survive to hospital admission. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 235 consecutive patients who were hospitalized after nontraumatic OHCA in Minnesota between January 2009 and May 2012 (117 survived to discharge; 118 died during hospitalization). Cases were eligible if the patient had received prehospital compressions from an emergency medical services (EMS) provider. One EMS provider in the area was using a mechanical compression device (LUCASTM) as standard equipment, so the association between injury and use of mechanical compression was also examined. Prehospital care information was abstracted from EMS run sheets, and hospital records were reviewed for injuries documented during the post-arrest hospitalization that likely resulted from compressions. Results. Injuries were identified in 31 patients (13%), the most common being rib fracture (9%) and intrathoracic hemorrhage (3%). Among those who survived to discharge, the mean length of stay was not statistically significantly different between those with injuries (13.5 days) and those without (10.8 days; p = 0.23). Crude injury prevalence was higher in those who died prior to discharge, had received compressions for >10 minutes (versus ≤10 minutes) and underwent computer tomography (CT) imaging, but did not differ by bystander compressions or use of mechanical compression. After multivariable adjustment, only compression time > 10 min and CT imaging during hospitalization were positively associated with detected injury (OR = 7.86 [95% CI = 1.7–35.9] and 6.30 [95% CI = 2.6–15.5], respectively). Conclusion. In patients who survived OHCA to admission, longer duration of compressions and use of CT during the post-arrest course were associated positively with documented compression injury. Compression-induced injuries detected via routine post-arrest care are likely to be largely insignificant in terms of length of recovery.Prehospital Emergency Care 07/2014; · 1.86 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.World journal of emergency medicine. 01/2011; 2(3):165-8.