Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb 4;21(1):18.
doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00409-3.

Testing mechanical chest compression devices of different design for their suitability for prehospital patient transport - a simulator-based study

Maximilian Jörgens  1 , Jürgen Königer  2 , Karl-Georg Kanz  3 , Torsten Birkholz  4 , Heiko Hübner  5 , Stephan Prückner  1 , Bernhard Zwissler  6 , Heiko Trentzsch  7
Affiliations

Testing mechanical chest compression devices of different design for their suitability for prehospital patient transport - a simulator-based study

Maximilian Jörgens et al. BMC Emerg Med. .

Abstract

Background: Mechanical chest compression (mCPR) offers advantages during transport under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Little is known how devices of different design perform en-route. Aim of the study was to measure performance of mCPR devices of different construction-design during ground-based 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. 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 up to 10), 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: Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation; Device stability; Mechanical chest compressions; Pre-hospital emergency medical services; Transport.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportion of compression with pressure depth meeting guidelines (%), by device and route. (*) Faulty data recording on the first run (− unintended termination after 20 s; limited information
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014. - PubMed
    1. Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, Rubertsson S. A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2011;82:702–706. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gates S, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Blair L, Couper K, Perkins GD. Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2015;94:91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ji C, Lall R, Quinn T, Kaye C, Haywood K, Horton J, et al. Post-admission outcomes of participants in the PARAMEDIC trial: a cluster randomised trial of mechanical or manual chest compressions. Resuscitation. 2017;118:82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.06.026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Soar J, Nolan JP, Böttiger BW, Perkins GD, Lott C, Carli P, et al. Erweiterte Reanimationsmaßnahmen für Erwachsene (“adult advanced life support”): Kapitel 3 der Leitlinien zur Reanimation 2015 des European Resuscitation Counci. 2015;18:770–832.

Publication types