Impact of personal protective equipment on the effectiveness of chest compression - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on different aspects of chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we conducted this study. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to June-6, 2020, limiting to the studies that reported the comparison of the effectiveness of CC in terms of CC rate, CC depth, the proportion of adequate CC rate, the proportion of adequate CC depth or proportion of adequate recoil; in study arms with or without PPE. Risk of bias was assessed by the ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tool. Quantitative data synthesis was done using the generic inverse variance method and the fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Five simulation-based studies were finally included. A Significant decrease in CC rate (SMD: -0.28, 95%CI: -0.47 to -0.10) and CC depth (SMD: -0.26, 95%CI: -0.44 to -0.07) were observed in the PPE arm as compared to the no-PPE arm. The difference in CC rate was more prominently seen in adult CPR than in paediatric CPR. Without PPE, the proportion of adequate CC rate delivered was 0.74, which reduced significantly to 0.60 after use of PPE (p - 0.035). Similarly, the proportion of adequate CC depth was significantly lesser (p - 0.001) in PPE arm (0.55), as compared to that of the no-PPE arm (0.78). CONCLUSION: The use of PPE compromises the quality of CC during CPR significantly, and newer ways to deliver chest compression has to be investigated. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020192031).

Cardiovascular risk factors differently affect the survival of patients undergoing manual or mechanical resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Chest compression is a decisive element of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). By applying a mechanical CPR device, compression interruptions can be minimised. We examined the efficiency of manual and device-assisted resuscitation as well as the effects of cardiovascular risk factors on the outcome of resuscitation. METHODS: In our retrospective, randomised 3-year study the data of adult patients suffering non-traumatic, out-of-hospital, sudden cardiac death (SCD) were analysed (n = 287). The data were retrieved by processing case reports, Utstein sheets and acute coronary syndrome sheets. We compared the data of patients undergoing manual (n = 232) and device-assisted resuscitation (LUCAS-2, n = 55). The primary endpoint was the on-site restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In 37% of the cases ROSC happened. With respect to ROSC an insignificantly more favourable tendency was demonstrated in the case of device-assisted resuscitation (p = 0.072). In the Lucas group, a higher success rate occurred even in the case of prolonged resuscitation. We found a better outcome in the Lucas group in the case of CPR started a longer time after the SCD (p < 0.05). A positive correlation was established between age and unsuccessful resuscitation (p = < 0.017; r = 0.125). An unfavourable correlation was observed between hypertension and the outcome of resuscitation (p = 0.018; r = 0.143). According to our results the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy poses 5.1-fold risk of unsuccessful CPR (CI: 4.97-5.29). Advanced age and structural heart diseases can play a role in the genesis of SCD. Importantly, left ventricular hypertrophy and hypertension negatively affect survival.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of resuscitation strategies using mechanical chest compressions versus resuscitation strategies using standard manual chest compressions with respect to neurologically intact survival in patients who suffer cardiac arrest. SEARCH METHODS: On 19 August 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science databases. Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts and Science Citation abstracts had been searched up to November 2009 for prior versions of this review. We also searched two clinical trials registries for any ongoing trials not captured by our search of databases containing published works: Clinicaltrials.gov (August 2017) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (January 2018). We applied no language restrictions. We contacted experts in the field of mechanical chest compression devices and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-randomised studies comparing mechanical chest compressions versus manual chest compressions during CPR for patients with cardiac arrest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included five new studies in this update. In total, we included 11 trials in the review, including data from 12,944 adult participants, who suffered either out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) or in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We excluded studies explicitly including patients with cardiac arrest caused by trauma, drowning, hypothermia and toxic substances. These conditions are routinely excluded from cardiac arrest intervention studies because they have a different underlying pathophysiology, require a variety of interventions specific to the underlying condition and are known to have a prognosis different from that of cardiac arrest with no obvious cause. The exclusions were meant to reduce heterogeneity in the population while maintaining generalisability to most patients with sudden cardiac death.The overall quality of evidence for the outcomes of included studies was moderate to low due to considerable risk of bias. Three studies (N = 7587) reported on the designated primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of one or two), which had moderate quality evidence. One study showed no difference with mechanical chest compressions (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.39), one study demonstrated equivalence (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.04), and one study demonstrated reduced survival (RR 0.41, CI 0.21 to 0.79). Two other secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission (N = 7224) and survival to hospital discharge (N = 8067), also had moderate quality level of evidence. No studies reported a difference in survival to hospital admission. For survival to hospital discharge, two studies showed benefit, four studies showed no difference, and one study showed harm associated with mechanical compressions. No studies demonstrated a difference in adverse events or injury patterns between comparison groups but the quality of data was low. Marked clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence does not suggest that CPR protocols involving mechanical chest compression devices are superior to conventional therapy involving manual chest compressions only. We conclude on the balance of evidence that mechanical chest compression devices used by trained individuals are a reasonable alternative to manual chest compressions in settings where consistent, high-quality manual chest compressions are not possible or dangerous for the provider (eg, limited rescuers available, prolonged CPR, during hypothermic cardiac arrest, in a moving ambulance, in the angiography suite, during preparation for extracorporeal CPR [ECPR], etc.). Systems choosing to incorporate mechanical chest compression devices should be closely monitored because some data identified in this review suggested harm. Special attention should be paid to minimising time without compressions and delays to defibrillation during device deployment.

An insidious and deadly complication of mechanical chest compressions in a patient on anticoagulation and the subtle echocardiographic findings that enabled timely diagnosis.

Good-quality chest compressions improve outcomes in cardiac arrest. While manual chest compressions are suboptimal in this regard, the LUCAS device has been shown to improve the effectiveness of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The complication rate associated with mechanical CPR, however, has not been adequately studied. Limited evidence suggests no difference in internal injury between manual and mechanical CPR. We report the case of a patient on anticoagulation who developed a mediastinal hematoma post mechanical CPR and on whom subtle findings on initial echocardiography could have alerted the clinician to this complication early during the clinical course. This case further suggests that there may be special populations of patients in whom we may need to be more vigilant in the use of mechanical CPR.

CPR using the lifeline ARM mechanical chest compression device: a randomized, crossover, manikin trial.

INTRODUCTION: European Resuscitation Council as well as American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) stress the importance of uninterrupted and effective chest compressions (CCs). Manual CPR decreases in quality of CCs over time because of fatigue which impacts outcome. We report the first study with the Lifeline ARM automated CC device for providing uninterrupted CCs. METHODS: Seventy-eight paramedics participated in this randomized, crossover, manikin trial. We compared the fraction of effective CCs between manual CPR and automated CPR using the ARM. RESULTS: Using the ARM during resuscitation resulted in a higher percentage of effective CCs (100/min [interquartile range, 99-100]) compared with manual CCs (43/min [interquartile range, 39-46]; P<.001). The number of effective CCs decreased less over time with the ARM (P<.001), more often reached the required depth of 5 cm (97% vs 63%, P<.001), and more often reached the recommended CC rate (P<.001). The median tidal volume was higher and hands-off time was lower when using the ARM. CONCLUSION: Mechanical CCs in our study adhere more closely to current guidelines than manual CCs. The Lifeline ARM provides more effective CCs, more ventilation time and minute volume, less hands-off time, and less decrease in effective CCs over time compared with manual Basic Life Support and might therefore impact outcome.

Mechanical compression devices for cardiac arrest: report of three cases.

Mechanical compression devices enable transportation of patients with cardiac arrest to the catheterization laboratory. Coronary angiography and coronary interventions can be performed while the patients are being resuscitated with these devices. In this report, we describe three cases in whom resuscitation with mechanical compression devices and rapid transportation to the catheterization laboratory resulted in favorable cardiac and neurological outcome.

Update on mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to update and discuss the use of mechanical chest compression devices in treatment of cardiac arrest. RECENT FINDINGS: Three recently published large multicenter randomized trials have not been able to show any improved outcome in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients when compared with manual chest compressions. SUMMARY: Mechanical chest compression devices have been developed to better deliver uninterrupted chest compressions of good quality. Prospective large randomized studies have not been able to prove a better outcome compared to manual chest compressions; however, latest guidelines support their use when high-quality manual chest compressions cannot be delivered. Mechanical chest compressions can also be preferred during transportation, in the cath-lab and as a bridge to more invasive support like extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus CPR Including a Mechanical Chest Compression Device in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis From Randomized and Observational Studies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Mechanical chest compression devices have been developed to facilitate continuous delivery of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Despite promising hemodynamic data, evidence on clinical outcomes remains inconclusive. With the completion of 3 randomized controlled trials, we conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of in-field mechanical versus manual CPR on clinical outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: With a systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries), we identified all eligible studies (randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies) that compared a CPR strategy including an automated mechanical chest compression device with a strategy of manual CPR only. Outcome variables were survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and favorable neurologic outcome. RESULTS: Twenty studies (n=21,363) were analyzed: 5 randomized controlled trials and 15 nonrandomized studies, pooled separately. For survival to admission, the pooled estimate of the randomized controlled trials did not indicate a difference (odds ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.05; P=.24) between mechanical and manual CPR. In contrast, meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies demonstrated a benefit in favor of mechanical CPR (odds ratio 1.42; 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.67; P<.001). No interaction was found between the endorsed CPR guidelines (2000 versus 2005) and the CPR strategy (P=.27). Survival to discharge and neurologic outcome did not differ between strategies. CONCLUSION: Although there are lower-quality, observational data that suggest that mechanical CPR used at the rescuer's discretion could improve survival to hospital admission, the cumulative high-quality randomized evidence does not support a routine strategy of mechanical CPR to improve survival or neurologic outcome. These findings are irrespective of the endorsed CPR guidelines during the study periods.

Randomized trial of the chest compressions effectiveness comparing 3 feedback CPR devices and standard basic life support by nurses.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of mortality and serious neurological morbidity in Europe. We aim to investigate the effect of 3 cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices on effectiveness of chest compression during CPR. METHODS: This was prospective, randomized, crossover, controlled trial. Following a brief didactic session, 140 volunteer nurses inexperienced with feedback CPR devices attempted chest compression on a manikin using 3 CPR feedback devices (TrueCPR, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR) and standard basic life support (BLS) without feedback. RESULTS: Comparison of standard BLS, TrueCPR, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR showed differences in the effectiveness of chest compression (compressions with correct pressure point, correct depth, and sufficient decompression), which are, respectively, 37.5%, 85.6%, 39.5%, and 33.4%; compression depth (44.6 vs 54.5 vs 45.6 vs 39.6 mm); and compression rate (129.4 vs 110.2 vs 101.5 vs 103.5 min(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: During the simulated resuscitation scenario, only TrueCPR significantly affected the increased effectiveness compression compared with standard BLS, CPR-Ezy, and iCPR. Further studies are required to confirm the results in clinical practice.

Manual versus Mechanical Chest Compressions on Surfaces of Varying Softness with or without Backboards: A Randomized, Crossover Manikin Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest compression quality is decisive for overall outcome after cardiac arrest. Chest compression depth may decrease when cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed on a mattress, and the use of a backboard does not necessarily improve compression depth. Mechanical chest compression devices may overcome this problem. OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the effectiveness of manual chest compressions both with and without a backboard compared to mechanical CPR performed on surfaces of different softness. METHODS: Twenty-four advanced life support (ALS)-certified rescuers were enrolled. LUCAS2 (Physio-Control, Redmond, WA) delivers 52 ± 2 mm deep chest compressions and active decompressions back to the neutral position (frequency 102 min(-1); duty cycle, 50%). This simulated CPR scenario was performed on a Resusci-Anne manikin (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) that was lying on 3 different surfaces: 1) a concrete floor, 2) a firm standard mattress, and 3) a pressure-relieving mattress. Data were recorded by the Laerdal Skill Reporting System. RESULTS: Manual chest compression with or without a backboard were performed correctly less often than mechanical chest compressions (floor: 33% [interquartile range {IQR}, 27-48%] vs. 90% [IQR, 86-94%], p < 0.001; standard mattress: 32% [IQR, 20-45%] vs. 27% [IQR, 14-46%] vs. 91% [IQR, 51-94%], p < 0.001; and pressure-relieving mattress 29% [IQR, 17-49%] vs. 30% [IQR, 17-52%] vs. 91% [IQR, 87-95%], p < 0.001). The mean compression depth on both mattresses was deeper with mechanical chest compressions (floor: 53 mm [range, 47-57 mm] vs. 56 mm [range, 54-57 mm], p = 0.003; standard mattress: 50 mm [range, 44-55 mm] vs. 51 mm [range, 47-55 mm] vs. 55 mm [range, 54-58 mm], p < 0.001; and pressure-relieving mattress: 49 mm [range, 44-55 mm] vs. 50 mm [range, 44-53 mm] vs. 55 mm [range, 55-56 mm], p < 0.001). In this ∼6-min scenario, the mean hands-off time was ∼15 to 20 s shorter in the manual CPR scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental study, only ∼30% of manual chest compressions were performed correctly compared to ∼90% of mechanical chest compressions, regardless of the underlying surface. Backboard use did not influence the mean compression depth during manual CPR. Chest compressions were deeper with mechanical CPR. The mean hands-off time was shorter with manual CPR.

LUCAS(™)2 in Danish Search and Rescue Helicopters.

OBJECTIVE: Prehospital resuscitation is often challenging. Giving uninterrupted and effective compressions is relatively impossible during transportation. In 2012, The Royal Danish Air Force received a donation of 8 mechanical chest compression devices (LUCAS(™)2; Physio-Control/Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) to be used onboard the Danish search and rescue (SAR) helicopters. The scope of this investigation was to establish whether or not mechanical chest compression devices should be considered a necessity onboard the Danish SAR helicopters. METHODS: Data were compiled from SAR medical journals. From the data collected, observations were made as to when LUCAS(™)2 was used and what diagnosis the SAR physician made. RESULTS: One thousand ninety missions were registered in the 24-month research period, and LUCAS(™)2 was used in 25 missions. Cardiac emergencies amounted for 25% of the missions. CONCLUSION: The Danish SAR helicopters retrieved 33 drowned/hypothermic patients during the research period, and the LUCAS(™)2 was used in 11 of the patients requiring resuscitation. The LUCAS(™)2 was frequently used during other emergencies like sudden cardiac arrest. Cardiac emergencies were the predominant type of mission. LUCAS(™)2 is now considered mandatory on Danish SAR helicopters.

The LUCAS 2 chest compression device is not always efficient: an echographic confirmation.

Survival after cardiac arrest depends on prompt and effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Resuscitative teams are more frequently using mechanical chest compression devices, as documented in physiologic and experimental data, suggesting that these devices are more effective than manual CPR. A 41-year-old male patient presented with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiac arrest. The patient was immediately resuscitated by manual chest compressions; CPR was continued with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2). The patient had experienced a 15-minute period of "low-flow" without "no-flow" episode. After a discussion with the heart team, we decided that the patient was a candidate for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy. During the ECMO implantation, we noticed that while performing transesophageal echocardiography, chest compressions were ineffective with the machine. After the ECMO implantation, we observed myocardial damage in the right-sided heart cavities. The present case report illustrates the likelihood that the mechanical chest compression device has limitations that might contribute to inadequate CPR. Therefore, rescuers should consider the efficacy of their chest compression through a continuous hemodynamic monitoring during CPR.

[Transluminal coronary angioplasty during resuscitation--an option not to be ignored]. / Elvytyksen aikainen sepelvaltimon pallolaajennushoito--mahdollisuus, joka tulisi muistaa.

We describe a prolonged and successful in-hospital resuscitation, during which the cause of cardiac arrest was treated by transluminal coronary angioplasty. A closed cardiac massage device was used in the resuscitation of the patient, and the treatment required close collaboration between the cardiologist and the resuscitation team. In spite of the difficult initial situation and several disturbances of vital functions the patient was discharged in good condition.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of the Cochrane review on mechanical chest compression devices published in 2011 (Brooks 2011). Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of mechanical chest compressions versus standard manual chest compressions with respect to neurologically intact survival in patients who suffer cardiac arrest. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL; 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2013 January Week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 January Week 2), Science Citation abstracts (1960 to 18 November 2009), Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) (1970 to 11 January 2013) on Thomson Reuters Web of Science, biotechnology and bioengineering abstracts (1982 to 18 November 2009), conference proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 11 January 2013) and clinicaltrials.gov (2 August 2013). We applied no language restrictions. Experts in the field of mechanical chest compression devices and manufacturers were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-randomised studies comparing mechanical chest compressions versus manual chest compressions during CPR for patients with atraumatic cardiac arrest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors abstracted data independently; disagreement between review authors was resolved by consensus and by a third review author if consensus could not be reached. The methodologies of selected studies were evaluated by a single author for risk of bias. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome. We planned to use RevMan 5 (Version 5.2. The Nordic Cochrane Centre) and the DerSimonian & Laird method (random-effects model) to provide a pooled estimate for risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), if data allowed. MAIN RESULTS: Two new studies were included in this update. Six trials in total, including data from 1166 participants, were included in the review. The overall quality of included studies was poor, and significant clinical heterogeneity was observed. Only one study (N = 767) reported survival to hospital discharge with good neurological function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of one or two), demonstrating reduced survival with mechanical chest compressions when compared with manual chest compressions (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79). Data from four studies demonstrated increased return of spontaneous circulation, and data from two studies demonstrated increased survival to hospital admission with mechanical chest compressions as compared with manual chest compressions, but none of the individual estimates reached statistical significance. Marked clinical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs in humans is insufficient to conclude that mechanical chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest are associated with benefit or harm. Widespread use of mechanical devices for chest compressions during cardiac events is not supported by this review. More RCTs that measure and account for the CPR process in both arms are needed to clarify the potential benefit to be derived from this intervention.

Automatic chest compression devices--when do they make sense?

The current resuscitation guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council do not include automatic chest compression devices (ACDs) as standard equipment to support cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts. One possible reason could be the lack of a list of indications and contraindications for the use of ACD systems. This review should give a summary of current studies and developments according to ACD systems and deliver a list of possible applications. Furthermore, we discuss some ethical problems with cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts and, in particular, with ACD systems. The use of ACDs occurs instead of manual chest compression. Because of this, there is no reason for changing the current guidelines, especially termination recommendations while using ACD systems. From our point of view, ACDs are a very good supplement to the current standard of resuscitation according to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines.

The effect of inclined step stool on the quality of chest compression during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

PURPOSE: A step stool is an ordinary device to improve the quality of chest compression (CC) during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We investigated the effect of an inclined step stool on the quality of CC during CPR on a hospital bed. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover study of simulation using a manikin. Two different methods of CC were performed and compared: CC using a flat stool and CC using an inclined (20°) stool. Each session of CC was performed for 2 minutes using a metronome at a rate of 110 beats per minute. The primary outcome was the depth of CC. The adequate CC rate, duty cycle, rate of incomplete recoil, and the angle between the arm of the participants and the bed were also measured. RESULTS: The median value of the mean depth of CC was 50.5 mm (45.0-57.0 mm) in the flat stool group and 54.5 mm (47.0-58.3 mm) in the inclined stool group (P = .014). The adequate CC rate was significantly higher in the inclined stool group (84.2% [37.6%-99.1%] vs 57.0% [15.2%-95.0%]; P = .016). The duty cycle and the rate of incomplete recoil were comparable between the 2 groups. The angles between the arm of the participants and the bed were more vertical in the inclined stool group (84.0° ± 5.2° vs 81.0° ± 4.8°; P = .014). CONCLUSION: Using an inclined stool resulted in an improvement in the depth of CC and the adequate CC rate without increasing the rate of incomplete chest recoil.

Full recovery after prolonged cardiac arrest and resuscitation with mechanical chest compression device during helicopter transportation and percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Despite early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by bystanders and early advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) maneuvers, some patients present to the emergency department with persistent cardiac arrest caused by a coronary artery occlusion. Although emergency percutaneous intervention (PCI) has been shown to be effective in improving survival, transporting patients in cardiac arrest to the hospital is not considered to be effective, due to the poor quality of CPR in the ambulance. In the case reported here, a mechanical chest compression device was used while transporting the patient by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). CASE REPORT: A mechanical chest compression device was used to deliver chest compressions to a 53-year-old man in cardiac arrest. This device permitted the transfer of the patient by HEMS helicopter to the catheterization laboratory facility for a PCI. Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved 115 min after cardiac arrest and the patient survived without any neurological deficit. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: The mechanical chest compression device has permitted safe and effective CPR during helicopter transportation. Although this is only a single case, it may present a new perspective for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest that is refractory to ACLS therapies.

Web-based general public opinion study of automated versus manual external chest compression.

BACKGROUND: Only a few cardiac-arrest victims receive external chest compression (ECC) by a bystander. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the general public might start ECC more often if they used an automated device rather than a manual massage. METHODS: Web-based public opinion survey based on two short videos, one showing manual ECC and the other automated ECC (Autopulse, Zoll, France). Advantages and disadvantages (perceived efficacy, reproducibility, hazard, apprehension and acceptability) of the two techniques were evaluated on a visual analogue scale (VAS). A VAS of 1-3 was considered to indicate preference for manual ECC, 8-10 for automated ECC and 4-7 for no clear preference. The final global score was the difference between advantage and disadvantage scores. RESULTS: Overall, 1769 persons answered the questionnaire. The median VAS score for each variable was as follows: 7 (25-75 percentiles, 5-9) for efficacy, 8 (3-10) for reproducibility, 5 (3-8) for hazard, 5 (2-8) for apprehension and 5 (2-8) for acceptability. The overall median score indicated that 1034 persons (58%) preferred use of the device, 618 (35%) preferred manual ECC and 117 (7%) had no preference. There was no significant difference in the preference according to gender, education and training in first aid. However, older persons (0) preferred the use of device. CONCLUSIONS: The better 'advantages over disadvantages' score for the automated ECC device over manual ECC indicated that the general public might envisage use of the device. This could contribute to increase the frequency of resuscitation attempts by bystanders.

Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACDR CPR) uses a hand-held suction device, applied mid-sternum, to compress the chest then actively decompress the chest after each compression. Randomised controlled trials testing this device have shown discordant results. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of active chest compression-decompression CPR compared to standard chest compression CPR on mortality and neurological function in adults with cardiac arrest treated either in-hospital or out-of-hospital. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the searches of CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 12 of 12, 2012), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to January week 1 2013), and EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to week 1 2013) on 14 January 2013. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles, contacted experts in the field, and searched ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing active compression-decompression with standard manual chest compression in adults with a cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a trained medical or paramedical team. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently extracted data on an intention-to-treat basis. When needed, we contacted the authors of the primary studies. If appropriate, we cumulated studies and pooled relative risk (RR) estimates. We predefined subgroup analyses according to setting (out-of-hospital or in-hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only). MAIN RESULTS: In this update, 27 new related publications were found, but they did not all fulfil inclusion criteria or concerned participants already reported in previous publications. In the end, we included 10 trials in this review: Eight were in out-of-hospital settings; one was set in-hospital only; and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in four studies. The two in-hospital studies were different in quality and size (773 and 53 participants). Both found no differences between ACDR CPR and STR in any outcome.Out-of-hospital trials cumulated 4162 participants. There were no differences between ACDR CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.03) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). The pooled RR of neurological impairment of any severity was 1.71 (95% CI 0.90 to 3.25), with a non-significant trend to more frequent severe neurological damage in survivors of ACDR CPR (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 9.83). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited, and few participants had neurological damage.There was no difference between ACDR CPR and STR with regard to complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax, or haemothorax (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACDR CPR. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Active chest compression-decompression in people with cardiac arrest is not associated with any clear benefit.