• Ji Ho Ryu, Mun Ki Min, Dae Sub Lee, Min Jee Lee, Mo Se Chun, Taegyu Hyun, and Seung Woo Shon.
• Department of emergency medicine, Pusan National University Yansgan Hospital, Pusan National Univerisy School of medicine.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Oct 1; 60: 116120116-120.

BackgroundDuring manual chest compression, maintaining accurate compression depth and consistency is a challenge. Therefore, mechanical chest compression devices(mCCDs) have been increasingly incorporated in clinical practice. Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these devices is critical for extensive clinical application. Hence, this study compared the cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR) efficiency of two chest compression devices, LUCAS™ 3(Physio-Control, Redmond, USA) and Easy Pulse (Schiller Medizintechnik GMBH, Feldkirchen, Germany), in terms of blood flow using ultrasonography(USG) in a swine model.MethodsA swine model was used to compare two mCCDs, LUCAS™ 3 and Easy Pulse. Cardiac arrest was induced by injecting potassium chloride(KCl) solution in eight male mongrel pigs and the animals were randomly divided into two groups. Mechanical CPR was provided to two groups using LUCAS™ 3(LUCAS™ 3 group) and Easy Pulse(Easy Pulse group). USG was used to measure hemodynamic parameters including femoral peak systolic velocity(PSV) and femoral artery diameters(diameter during systole and diastole). Blood flow rate was calculated by multiplying the PSV and cross-sectional area of the femoral artery during systole. The end-tidal carbon dioxide(EtCo2), chest compression depth was measured. Systolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were also measured using an arterial catheter.ResultsThe chest compression depth was much deeper in LUCAS™ 3 group than Easy Pulse group(LUCAS™ 3: 6.80 cm; Easy Pulse: 3.279 cm, p < 0.001). However, EtCo2 was lower in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 19.8 mmHg; Easy Pulse: 33.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). The PSV was higher in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 67.6 cm s-1; Easy Pulse: 55.0 cm s-1, p < 0.001), while the systolic(LUCAS™ 3: 1.5 cm; Easy Pulse: 2.0 cm, p < 0.001) and diastolic diameters were larger in the Easy Pulse group(LUCAS™ 3: 0.4; Easy Pulse: 0.8 cm, p < 0.001). The femoral flood flow rate was also lower in the LUCAS™ 3 group(LUCAS™ 3: 32.55 cm3/s; Easy Pulse: 61.35 cm3/s, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe Easy Pulse had a shallower compression depth and slower PSV but had a wider systolic diameter in the femoral artery as compared to that in LUCAS™ 3. Blood flow and EtCo2 were higher in the easy pulse group probably because of the wider diameter. Therefore, an easy pulse may create and maintain more effective intrathoracic pressure.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

13 keywords...

hide…