• Marc-Michael Ventzke, Holger Gässler, Lorenz Lampl, and Matthias Helm.
• Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Armed Forces Medical Centre Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89081, Ulm, Germany, ventzke@me.com.
• Intern Emerg Med. 2013 Oct 1; 8 (7): 621-6.

AbstractHigh-quality chest compressions are crucial during resuscitation if a positive outcome is to be achieved. Sometimes a patient must be transported within the hospital while chest compressions are being performed. We compared different chest compression devices [animax mono (AM), AutoPulse(®) (AP) and LUCAS2™ (L2)] with manual chest compression using a manikin during transport from a fifth floor ward to the cardiac catheterization laboratory in the basement. Chest compressions were interrupted for 10.7 s to set up the AM, 15.3 s for the L2 and 23.5 s for the AP. The use of a mechanical device reduced transport times from 144.5 s when manual compressions were underway, to 126.8, 111.1 and 98.5 s with the AM, L2 and AP, respectively (p < 0.05). Transfer to the laboratory gurney required little or no interruption in chest compressions with the L2 (0.8 s) and AP (no interruption), compared with 10.3 s with the AP and 3.3 s for manual compressions. Manual compression frequency was 124 min(-1), compared with 100.4 min(-1) for the AM, 99.9 min(-1) for the L2 and 79.7 min(-1) for the AP. Compression depth did not change during transport in any group. Mechanical compression devices are suitable for use during transport, but are not clearly superior to manual compressions. Devices maintain the same compression depth, but fell short of current guidelines, as did manual compressions. Some interruptions occurred while the devices were set up. Further, patient studies are necessary to determine the clinical utility of these devices.

7 keywords...

hide…