• Holger Gässler, Simone Kümmerle, Marc-Michael Ventzke, Lorenz Lampl, and Matthias Helm.
• Section Emergency Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Armed Forces Medical Centre Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 40, 89081, Ulm, Germany, holgergaessler@bundeswehr.org.
• Intern Emerg Med. 2015 Sep 1; 10 (6): 715-20.

AbstractMechanical chest compression devices are mentioned in the current guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) as an alternative in long-lasting cardiopulmonary resuscitations (CPR) or during transport with ongoing CPR. We compared manual chest compression with mechanical devices in a rescue-helicopter-based scenario using a resuscitation manikin. Manual chest compression was compared with the mechanical devices LUCAS™ 2, AutoPulse™ and animax mono (10 series each) using the resuscitation manikin AmbuMan MegaCode Wireless, which was intubated endotracheally and controlled ventilated during the entire scenario. The scenario comprised the installation of each device, transport and loading phases, as well as a 10-min phase inside the helicopter (type BK 117). We investigated practicability as well as measured compression quality. All mechanical devices could be used readily in a BK 117 helicopter. The LUCAS 2 group was the only one that fulfilled all recommendations of the ERC (frequency 102 ± 0.1 min(-1), compression depth 54 ± 3 mm, hands-off time 2.5 ± 1.6 %). Performing adequate manual chest compression was barely possible (fraction of correct compressions 21 ± 15 %). In all four groups, the total hands-off time was <10 %. Performing manual chest compressions during rescue-helicopter transport is barely possible, and only of poor quality. If rescuers are experienced, mechanical chest compression devices could be good alternatives in this situation. We found that the LUCAS 2 system complied with all recommendations of ERC guidelines, and all three tested devices worked consistently during the entire scenario.

19 keywords...

hide…