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.
- Resuscitation 06/2006; 69(2):347; discussion 347-8. · 4.10 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation contributes to cardiac arrest survival. The proportion of time in which chest compressions are performed in each minute of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an important modifiable aspect of quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We sought to estimate the effect of an increasing proportion of time spent performing chest compressions during cardiac arrest on survival to hospital discharge in patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. This is a prospective observational cohort study of adult patients from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Cardiac Arrest Epistry with confirmed ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia, no defibrillation before emergency medical services arrival, electronically recorded cardiopulmonary resuscitation before the first shock, and a confirmed outcome. Patients were followed up to discharge from the hospital or death. Of the 506 cases, the mean age was 64 years, 80% were male, 71% were witnessed by a bystander, 51% received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 34% occurred in a public location, and 23% survived. After adjustment for age, gender, location, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, bystander witness status, and response time, the odds ratios of surviving to hospital discharge in the 2 highest categories of chest compression fraction compared with the reference category were 3.01 (95% confidence interval 1.37 to 6.58) and 2.33 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 5.63). The estimated adjusted linear effect on odds ratio of survival for a 10% change in chest compression fraction was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.21). An increased chest compression fraction is independently predictive of better survival in patients who experience a prehospital ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia cardiac arrest.Circulation 09/2009; 120(13):1241-7. · 15.20 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may improve both cardiac and brain resuscitation following cardiac arrest. Compared with manual chest compression, an automated load-distributing band (LDB) chest compression device produces greater blood flow to vital organs and may improve resuscitation outcomes. To compare resuscitation outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when an automated LDB-CPR device was added to standard emergency medical services (EMS) care with manual CPR. Multicenter, randomized trial of patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States and Canada. The a priori primary population was patients with cardiac arrest that was presumed to be of cardiac origin and that had occurred prior to the arrival of EMS personnel. Initial study enrollment varied by site, ranging from late July to mid November 2004; all sites halted study enrollment on March 31, 2005. Standard EMS care for cardiac arrest with an LDB-CPR device (n = 554) or manual CPR (n = 517). The primary end point was survival to 4 hours after the 911 call. Secondary end points were survival to hospital discharge and neurological status among survivors. Following the first planned interim monitoring conducted by an independent data and safety monitoring board, study enrollment was terminated. No difference existed in the primary end point of survival to 4 hours between the manual CPR group and the LDB-CPR group overall (N = 1071; 29.5% vs 28.5%; P = .74) or among the primary study population (n = 767; 24.7% vs 26.4%, respectively; P = .62). However, among the primary population, survival to hospital discharge was 9.9% in the manual CPR group and 5.8% in the LDB-CPR group (P = .06, adjusted for covariates and clustering). A cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge was recorded in 7.5% of patients in the manual CPR group and in 3.1% of the LDB-CPR group (P = .006). Use of an automated LDB-CPR device as implemented in this study was associated with worse neurological outcomes and a trend toward worse survival than manual CPR. Device design or implementation strategies require further evaluation. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2006; 295(22):2620-8. · 29.98 Impact Factor