Top

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Thoracic Trauma | Original research

Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial

Authors: Robert Ruemmler, Jakob Stein, Bastian Duenges, Miriam Renz, Erik Kristoffer Hartmann

Published in: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Mechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries.

Objectives

To compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs.

Study design

Prospective randomised trial.

Animals

Eighteen male German landrace pigs.

Methods

Ventricular fibrillation was induced in anaesthetised and instrumented pigs and the animals were randomised into two intervention groups. Mechanical CPR was initiated by means of LUCAS™ 2 (mCCD1) or Corpuls™ cpr (mCCD2) device. Advanced life support was applied for a maximum of 10 cycles and animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 8 h. Ventilation/perfusion measurements were performed and blood gas analyses were taken. Thoracic injuries were assessed via a standardised damage score.

Results

Five animals of the mCCD1 group and one animal of the mCCD2 group achieved ROSC (p = 0.048). Only the mCCD1 animals survived until the end of the monitoring period (p < 0.01). MCCD1 animals showed less pulmonary shunt (p = 0.025) and higher normal V/Q (p = 0.017) during CPR. MCCD2 animals showed significantly more severe thoracic injuries (p = 0.046).

Conclusion

The LUCAS 2 device shows superior resuscitation outcomes and less thoracic injuries compared to Corpuls cpr when used for experimental CPR in juvenile pigs. Researchers should be aware that different mCCDs for experimental studies may significantly influence the respective outcome of resuscitation studies and affect comparability of different trials. Controlled human and animal CPR studies and a standardised post-resuscitation injury evaluation could help to confirm potential hazards.

Trial registration

Trial approval number: G16–1-042-E4.

Available only for authorised users

Treffer D, Weißleder A, Gässler H, Decken S, Hauptkorn M, Helm M. Functionality and operational fitness of mechanical chest compression devices. Anasthesiologie und Intensivmedizin. 2019;3:113–21.

Steen S, Liao Q, Pierre L, Paskevicius A, Sjöberg T. Evaluation of LUCAS, a new device for automatic mechanical compression and active decompression resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2002;55(3):285–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9572(02)00271-X.CrossRefPubMed

Fox J, Fiechter R, Gerstl P, Url A, Wagner H, Lüscher TF, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions. Acute Card Care. 2013;15(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.3109/17482941.2012.735675.CrossRefPubMed

Koster RW, Beenen LF, van der Boom EB, Spijkerboer AM, Tepaske R, van der Wal AC, et al. Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(40):3006–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx318.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liu M, Shuai Z, Ai J, Tang K, Liu H, Zheng J, et al. Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(44):e17550. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017550.CrossRef

Zhu N, Chen Q, Jiang Z, Liao F, Kou B, Tang H, et al. A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2389-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Östlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial. Jama. 2014;311(1):53–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282538.CrossRefPubMed

Soar J, Nolan JP, Böttiger BW, Perkins GD, Lott C, Carli P, et al. European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2015: section 3. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation. 2015;95:100–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.016.CrossRefPubMed

Axelsson C, Karlsson T, Axelsson AB, Herlitz J. Mechanical active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (P(ET)CO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Resuscitation. 2009;80(10):1099–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.08.006.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Eichhorn S, Mendoza Garcia A, Polski M, Spindler J, Stroh A, Heller M, et al. Corpuls cpr resuscitation device generates superior emulated flows and pressures than LUCAS II in a mechanical thorax model. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2017;40(2):441–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0537-3.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Eichhorn S, Spindler J, Polski M, Mendoza A, Schreiber U, Heller M, et al. Development and validation of an improved mechanical thorax for simulating cardiopulmonary resuscitation with adjustable chest stiffness and simulated blood flow. Med Eng Phys. 2017;43:64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2017.02.005.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Eichhorn S, Mendoza A, Prinzing A, Stroh A, Xinghai L, Polski M, et al. Corpuls CPR generates higher mean arterial pressure than LUCAS II in a pig model of cardiac arrest. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:5470406.CrossRef

13.

Ruemmler R, Ziebart A, Moellmann C, Garcia-Bardon A, Kamuf J, Kuropka F, et al. Ultra-low tidal volume ventilation-a novel and effective ventilation strategy during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2018;132:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.08.031.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Ruemmler R, Ziebart A, Garcia-Bardon A, Kamuf J, Hartmann EK. Standardized model of ventricular fibrillation and advanced cardiac life support in swine. J Vis Exp. 2020;155.

15.

Deliliga A, Chatzinikolaou F, Koutsoukis D, Chrysovergis I, Voultsos P. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) complications encountered in forensic autopsy cases. BMC Emerg Med. 2019;19(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-019-0234-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Kralj E, Podbregar M, Kejžar N, Balažic J. Frequency and number of resuscitation related rib and sternum fractures are higher than generally considered. Resuscitation. 2015;93:136–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.02.034.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ondruschka B, Baier C, Bayer R, Hammer N, Dressler J, Bernhard M. Chest compression-associated injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions versus automated chest compression devices (LUCAS II) - a forensic autopsy-based comparison. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2018;14(4):515–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-018-0024-5.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kashiwagi Y, Sasakawa T, Tampo A, Kawata D, Nishiura T, Kokita N, et al. Computed tomography findings of complications resulting from cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;88:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.12.022.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Cha KC, Kim YW, Kim HI, Kim OH, Cha YS, Kim H, et al. Parenchymal lung injuries related to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(1):117–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.10.036.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Pinto DC, Haden-Pinneri K, Love JC. Manual and automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): a comparison of associated injury patterns. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58(4):904–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12146.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, Rubertsson S. No difference in autopsy detected injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions compared with mechanical compressions with the LUCAS device--a pilot study. Resuscitation. 2009;80(10):1104–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.06.010.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Gässler H, Kümmerle S, Ventzke MM, Lampl L, Helm M. Mechanical chest compression: an alternative in helicopter emergency medical services? Intern Emerg Med. 2015;10(6):715–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-015-1238-0.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sunde K, Wik L, Steen PA. Quality of mechanical, manual standard and active compression-decompression CPR on the arrest site and during transport in a manikin model. Resuscitation. 1997;34(3):235–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9572(96)01087-8.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Eichhorn S. Untersuchungen zur Organperfusion unter maschineller Reanimation am technischen Ersatzmodell und am Hausschwein: LMU München; 2017.

25.

S. Dopfer BJ, J. Wnent, M. Heller, J.-T. Gräsner. COMPRESS - Comparing Observational Multicentre Prospective Registry Study on Resuscitation. Wissenschaftliche Arbeitstage Notfallmedizin, WATN [Scientific progressions on emergency medicine]; Kiel: Aktiv Druck&Verlag GmbH; 2017. p. 64.

26.

Holda MK, Holda J, Koziej M, Piatek K, Klimek-Piotrowska W. Porcine heart interatrial septum anatomy. Ann Anat. 2018;217:24–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2018.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hsu FS, Du SJ. Congenital heart diseases in swine. Vet Pathol. 1982;19(6):676–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/030098588201900613.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wollborn J, Ruetten E, Schlueter B, Haberstroh J, Goebel U, Schick MA. Standardized model of porcine resuscitation using a custom-made resuscitation board results in optimal hemodynamic management. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(10):1738–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2018.01.059.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kern KB, Carter AB, Showen RL, Voorhees WD 3rd, Babbs CF, Tacker WA, et al. CPR-induced trauma: comparison of three manual methods in an experimental model. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15(6):674–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(86)80424-3.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hoke RS, Chamberlain D. Skeletal chest injuries secondary to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2004;63(3):327–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.05.019.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
Authors: Robert Ruemmler
Jakob Stein
Bastian Duenges
Miriam Renz
Erik Kristoffer Hartmann
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Thoracic Trauma
Thoracic Trauma
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Published in: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1757-7241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00892-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Study design

Animals

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Study design

Animals

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Early posttraumatic stress symptoms and levels of distress in trauma patients treated in the resuscitation room: an exploratory study

Collective Critical Care Ambulance: an innovative transportation of critical care patients by bus in COVID-19 pandemic response

Effect of arterial oxygen partial pressure inflection point on Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for emergency cardiac support

Intramuscular uptake of tranexamic acid during haemorrhagic shock in a swine model

Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital serum S100B and GFAP in patients with mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective observational multicenter cohort study – “the PreTBI I study”

Survival and long-term outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest in a Swiss university hospital: a prospective observational study