Article

Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - A pilot study

University of Gothenburg, Goeteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
Resuscitation (Impact Factor: 3.96). 10/2006; 71(1):47-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.02.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after the introduction of mechanical chest compression (MCC) compared with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) in two emergency medical service (EMS) systems.
The inclusion criterion was witnessed OHCA. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, the following judged etiologies behind OHCA: trauma, pregnancy, hypothermia, intoxication, hanging and drowning or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to the arrival of the advanced life support (ALS) unit. Two MCC devices were allocated during six-month periods between four ALS units for a period of two years (cluster randomisation).
In all, 328 patients fulfilled the criteria for participation and 159 were allocated to the MCC tier (the device was used in 66% of cases) and 169 to the SCPR tier. In the MCC tier, 51% had ROSC (primary end-point) versus 51% in the SCPR tier. The corresponding values for hospital admission alive (secondary end-point) were 38% and 37% (NS). In the subset of patients in whom the device was used, the percentage who had ROSC was 49% versus 50% in a control group matched for age, initial rhythm, aetiology, bystander-/crew-witnessed status and delay to CPR. The percentage of patients discharged alive from hospital after OHCA was 8% versus 10% (NS) for all patients and 2% versus 4%, respectively (NS) for the patients in the subset (where the device was used and the matched control population).
In this pilot study, the results did not support the hypothesis that the introduction of mechanical chest compression in OHCA improves outcome. However, there is room for further improvement in the use of the device. The hypothesis that this will improve outcome needs to be tested in further prospective trials.

Full-text

Available from: Åsa Axelsson, May 19, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
164 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: High quality chest compressions is the most significant factor related to improved short-term and long-term outcome in cardiac arrest. However, considerable controversy exists over the mechanisms involved in driving blood flow. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to elucidate major mechanisms involved in effective compression-mediated blood flow during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Design and setting: Systematic review of studies identified from the bibliographic databases of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus. Selection criteria: All human and animal studies including information on the responsible mechanisms of compression-related blood flow. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers (MG, TX) independently screened all potentially relevant titles and abstracts for eligibility, by using a standardized data-worksheet. Main results: Forty seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Because of the heterogeneity in outcome measures, quantitative synthesis of evidence was not feasible. Evidence was critically synthesized in order to answer the review questions, taking into account study heterogeneity and validity. The number of included studies per category is as follows: blood flow during chest compression, nine studies; blood flow during chest decompression, six studies; effect of chest compression on cerebral blood flow, eight studies; active compression-decompression CPR, 14 studies; and effect of ventilation on compression-related blood flow, 13 studies. Conclusion: The evidence so far is inconclusive regarding the major responsible mechanism in compression-related blood flow. Although both ` cardiac pump' and ` thoracic pump' have a key role, the effect of each mechanism is highly depended on other resuscitation parameters, such as positive pressure ventilation and compression depth.
    Resuscitation 09/2014; 85(11). DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.08.032 · 3.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Poor quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) predicts adverse outcome. During invasive cardiac procedures automated-CPR (A-CPR) may help maintain effective resuscitation. The use of A-CPR following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) remains poorly described.Aims & methodsFirstly, we aimed to assess the efficiency of healthcare staff using A-CPR in a cardiac arrest scenario at baseline, following re-training and over time (Scenario-based training). Secondly, we studied our clinical experience of A-CPR at our institution over a 2-year period, with particular emphasis on the details of invasive cardiac procedures performed, problems encountered, resuscitation rates and in-hospital outcome (AutoPulse-CPR Registry).ResultsScenario-based training: Forty healthcare professionals were assessed. At baseline, time-to-position device was slow (mean 59 (± 24) s (range 15–96 s)), with the majority (57%) unable to mode-switch. Following re-training time-to-position reduced (28 (± 9) s, p < 0.01 vs baseline) with 95% able to mode-switch. This improvement was maintained over time. AutoPulse-CPR Registry: 285 patients suffered IHCA, 25 received A-CPR. Survival to hospital discharge following conventional CPR was 28/260 (11%) and 7/25 (28%) following A-CPR. A-CPR supported invasive procedures in 9 patients, 2 of whom had A-CPR dependant circulation during transfer to the catheter lab.ConclusionA-CPR may provide excellent haemodynamic support and facilitate simultaneous invasive cardiac procedures. A significant learning curve exists when integrating A-CPR into clinical practice. Further studies are required to better define the role and effectiveness of A-CPR following IHCA.
    International Journal of Cardiology 11/2014; 180. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.109 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mechanical chest compressions have been proposed to provide high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite the growing use of mechanical chest compression devices, only few studies have addressed their impact on CPR quality. This study aims to evaluate mechanical chest compressions provided by LUCAS-2 (Lund University Cardiac Assist System) compared with manual chest compression in a cohort of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases. In this prospective study conducted in the Central Denmark Region, Denmark, the emergency medical service attempted resuscitation and reported data on 696 non-traumatic OHCA patients between April 2011 and February 2013. Of these, 155 were treated with LUCAS CPR after an episode with manual CPR. The CPR quality was evaluated using transthoracic impedance measurements collected from the LIFEPAK 12 defibrillator, and the effect was assessed in terms of chest compression rate, no-flow time and no-flow fraction; the fraction of time during resuscitation in which the patient is without spontaneous circulation receiving no chest compression. The median total episode duration was 21 minutes, and the episode with LUCAS CPR was significantly longer than the manual CPR episode, 13 minutes vs. 5 minutes, p < 0.001. The no-flow fraction was significantly lower during LUCAS CPR (16%) than during manual CPR (35%); difference 19% (95% CI: 16% to 21%; p < 0.001). No differences were found in pre- and post-shock no-flow time throughout manual CPR and LUCAS CPR. Contrary to the manual CPR, the average compression rate during LUCAS CPR was in conformity with the current Guidelines for Resuscitation, 102/minute vs. 124/minute, p < 0.001. Mechanical chest compressions provided by the LUCAS device improve CPR quality by significantly reducing the NFF and by improving the quality of chest compression compared with manual CPR during OHCA resuscitation. However, data on end-tidal Co2 and chest compression depth surrogate parameters of CPR quality could not be reported.
    Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 04/2015; 23(1):37. DOI:10.1186/s13049-015-0114-2 · 1.93 Impact Factor