• Holger Gässler, Marc-Michael Ventzke, Lorenz Lampl, and Matthias Helm.
• Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Section Emergency Medicine, Armed Forces Medical Centre Ulm, Ulm, Germany. holgergaessler@bundeswehr.org
• Emerg Med J. 2013 Jul 1;30(7):589-92.

AimIn special circumstances it may be necessary to transport out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with ongoing resuscitation to the hospital. External mechanical chest compression devices could be an alternative for these resuscitations. The study compares manual chest compression with external mechanical devices and a semiautomatic device in transport conditions using a resuscitation manikin.MethodsManual chest compressions were compared with LUCAS 2, AutoPulse and animax mono devices using the Ambu Man Wireless MegaCode manikin (10 series each). The measurements were performed in a standard ambulance vehicle during transport on a predefined track of 5.0 km.ResultsMean compression frequencies in the manual group (117 ± 18 min(-1)) and in the animax mono group (115 ± 10 min(-1)) were significantly higher than in the LUCAS 2 group (100 min(-1), p=0.02) and the AutoPulse group (80 min(-1), p<0.01). Both mechanical devices worked absolutely constantly. Only the animax mono group reached with 51.2 mm the recommended compression depth. The quality of manual compressions decreased considerably during braking or change manoeuvres while the mechanical devices continued to work constantly.ConclusionsDuring a patient transport with ongoing resuscitation, external mechanical compression devices may be a good alternative to manual compression because they increase the safety of the rescuer and patient. Yet, in this study only animax mono reached the guideline specifications regarding chest compressions' frequency and depth. Concerning constancy, the mechanical devices work reliably and more independently from motion influences. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices in patient transport.

19 keywords...

hide…