This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original research
Heiko Trentzsch
Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universitat Munchen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6395-6873
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Mechanical chest compression (mCPR) offers advantages during transport under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Little is known how devices perform en-route. Aim of the study was to measure performance of mCPR devices of different design during pre-hospital transport.
Methods We tested animax mono (AM), autopulse (AP), corpuls cpr (CC) and LUCAS2 (L2). The route had 6 stages (transport on soft stretcher or gurney involving a stairwell, trips with turntable ladder, rescue basket and ambulance including loading/unloading). Stationary mCPR with the respective device served as control. A four-person team carried an intubated and bag-ventilated mannequin under mCPR to assess device-stability (displacement, pressure point correctness), compliance with 2015 ERC guideline criteria for high-quality chest compressions (frequency, proportion of recommended pressure depth and compression-ventilation ratio) and user satisfaction (by standardized questionnaire).
Results All devices performed comparable to stationary use. Displacement rates ranged from 83% (AM) to 11% (L2). Two incorrect pressure points occurred over 15,962 compressions (0.013%). Guideline-compliant pressure depth was > 90% in all devices and compression-ventilation ratio was 40% (AM), 87% (CC, L2 respectively) and 93% (AP). Electrically powered devices showed constant frequencies while muscle-powered AM showed more variability (median 100/min, interquartile range 9). Although physical effort of AM use was comparable (median 4.0 vs. 4.5 on visual scale), participants preferred electrical devices.
Conclusion All devices showed good to very good performance although device-stability, guideline compliance and user satisfaction varied by design. Our results underline the importance to check stability and connection to patient under transport.
Keywords
mechanical chest compression, mCPR, resuscitation, pre-hospital patient, transport conditions
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 01 Sep, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Critical Care & Emergency Medicine
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Original research
Heiko Trentzsch
Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universitat Munchen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6395-6873
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 01 Sep, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Critical Care & Emergency Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Mechanical chest compression (mCPR) offers advantages during transport under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Little is known how devices perform en-route. Aim of the study was to measure performance of mCPR devices of different design during pre-hospital transport.
Methods We tested animax mono (AM), autopulse (AP), corpuls cpr (CC) and LUCAS2 (L2). The route had 6 stages (transport on soft stretcher or gurney involving a stairwell, trips with turntable ladder, rescue basket and ambulance including loading/unloading). Stationary mCPR with the respective device served as control. A four-person team carried an intubated and bag-ventilated mannequin under mCPR to assess device-stability (displacement, pressure point correctness), compliance with 2015 ERC guideline criteria for high-quality chest compressions (frequency, proportion of recommended pressure depth and compression-ventilation ratio) and user satisfaction (by standardized questionnaire).
Results All devices performed comparable to stationary use. Displacement rates ranged from 83% (AM) to 11% (L2). Two incorrect pressure points occurred over 15,962 compressions (0.013%). Guideline-compliant pressure depth was > 90% in all devices and compression-ventilation ratio was 40% (AM), 87% (CC, L2 respectively) and 93% (AP). Electrically powered devices showed constant frequencies while muscle-powered AM showed more variability (median 100/min, interquartile range 9). Although physical effort of AM use was comparable (median 4.0 vs. 4.5 on visual scale), participants preferred electrical devices.
Conclusion All devices showed good to very good performance although device-stability, guideline compliance and user satisfaction varied by design. Our results underline the importance to check stability and connection to patient under transport.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...