Cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruptions with use of a load-distributing band device during emergency department cardiac arrest
- PMID: 20138401
- DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.01.004
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruptions with use of a load-distributing band device during emergency department cardiac arrest
Abstract
Study objective: Our primary aim is to measure no-flow time and no-flow ratio before and after an emergency department (ED) switched from manual to a load-distributing band mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device.
Methods: This was a phased, before-after cohort evaluation at an urban tertiary hospital ED. We collected continuous video and chest compression data with the Physiocontrol CodeStat Suite 7.0 for resuscitations during the period just before and after adoption of load-distributing band CPR. All out-of-hospital, nontraumatic cardiac arrest, adult patients were eligible. From February 2007 to July 2008, there were 26 manual and 41 load-distributing band cases.
Results: Patients in both phases were comparable in terms of demographics, medical history, witnessed arrest, arrest location, bystander CPR rates, out-of-hospital defibrillation, initial rhythm, and ED defibrillation. The median no-flow time, defined as the sum of all pauses between compressions longer than 1.5 seconds, during the first 5 minutes of resuscitation, was manual CPR 85 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 45 to 112 seconds) versus load-distributing band 104 seconds (IQR 69 to 151 seconds). The mean no-flow ratio, defined as no-flow time divided by segment length, was manual 0.28 versus load-distributing band 0.40 (difference=-0.12; 95% confidence interval -0.22 to -0.02). However, from 5 to 10 minutes into the resuscitation, median no-flow time was manual 85 seconds (IQR 59 to 151 seconds) versus load-distributing band 52 seconds (IQR 34 to 82 seconds) and mean no-flow ratio manual 0.34 versus load-distributing band 0.21 (difference=0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.24). The average time to apply load-distributing band CPR during this period was 152 seconds.
Conclusion: Application of a load-distributing band in the ED is associated with a higher no-flow ratio than manual CPR in the first 5 minutes of resuscitation. We suggest that attention to team training, rapid application of the device to minimize interruption, and feedback from defibrillator and video recordings may be useful to improve resuscitation team performance.
Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
The application of mechanical devices for CPR: make the first 5 minutes the best 5 minutes!Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Sep;56(3):242-3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.02.028. Epub 2010 Mar 31. Ann Emerg Med. 2010. PMID: 20359772 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The impact of a new CPR assist device on rate of return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005 Jan-Mar;9(1):61-7. doi: 10.1080/10903120590891714. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005. PMID: 16036830
-
Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.JAMA. 2006 Jun 14;295(22):2629-37. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.22.2629. JAMA. 2006. PMID: 16772626
-
Improving the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by training dedicated cardiac arrest teams incorporating a mechanical load-distributing device at the emergency department.Resuscitation. 2013 Apr;84(4):508-14. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.07.033. Epub 2012 Aug 17. Resuscitation. 2013. PMID: 22906966 Clinical Trial.
-
Improving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011 Jun;17(3):219-24. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32834697d8. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2011. PMID: 21499092 Review.
-
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: recent advances in resuscitation and effects on outcome.Heart. 2012 Apr;98(7):529-35. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300802. Epub 2011 Nov 1. Heart. 2012. PMID: 22045625 Review.
Cited by
-
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 27;5:15635. doi: 10.1038/srep15635. Sci Rep. 2015. PMID: 26503429 Free PMC article.
-
Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority.Eur Heart J. 2017 Oct 21;38(40):3006-3013. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx318. Eur Heart J. 2017. PMID: 29088439 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with cardiac arrest.World J Emerg Med. 2011;2(3):165-8. doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2011.03.001. World J Emerg Med. 2011. PMID: 25215003 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Hospital Survival Among Adult Patients With Nontraumatic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Attending the Emergency Department: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study in Japan (SOS-KANTO [Survey of Survivors after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Kanto Area] 2012 Study).J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Oct 31;6(11):e007420. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007420. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017. PMID: 29089341 Free PMC article.
-
Obstacles delaying the prompt deployment of piston-type mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices during emergency department resuscitation: a video-recording and time-motion study.Resuscitation. 2013 Sep;84(9):1208-13. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.03.028. Epub 2013 Apr 6. Resuscitation. 2013. PMID: 23571118 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical