Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries. OBJECTIVES: To compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomised trial. ANIMALS: Eighteen male German landrace pigs. METHODS: Ventricular fibrillation was induced in anaesthetised and instrumented pigs and the animals were randomised into two intervention groups. Mechanical CPR was initiated by means of LUCAS™ 2 (mCCD1) or Corpuls™ cpr (mCCD2) device. Advanced life support was applied for a maximum of 10 cycles and animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 8 h. Ventilation/perfusion measurements were performed and blood gas analyses were taken. Thoracic injuries were assessed via a standardised damage score. RESULTS: Five animals of the mCCD1 group and one animal of the mCCD2 group achieved ROSC (p = 0.048). Only the mCCD1 animals survived until the end of the monitoring period (p < 0.01). MCCD1 animals showed less pulmonary shunt (p = 0.025) and higher normal V/Q (p = 0.017) during CPR. MCCD2 animals showed significantly more severe thoracic injuries (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: The LUCAS 2 device shows superior resuscitation outcomes and less thoracic injuries compared to Corpuls cpr when used for experimental CPR in juvenile pigs. Researchers should be aware that different mCCDs for experimental studies may significantly influence the respective outcome of resuscitation studies and affect comparability of different trials. Controlled human and animal CPR studies and a standardised post-resuscitation injury evaluation could help to confirm potential hazards. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial approval number: G16-1-042-E4.

Differences between manual CPR and corpuls cpr in regard to quality and outcome: study protocol of the comparing observational multi-center prospective registry study on resuscitation (COMPRESS).

BACKGROUND: The effect of mechanical CPR is diversely described in the literature. Different mechanical CPR devices are available. The corpuls cpr is a new generation of piston-driven devices and was launched in 2015. The COMPRESS-trial analyzes quality of chest compression and CPR-related injuries in cases of mechanical CPR by the corpuls cpr and manual CPR. METHODS: This article describes the design and study protocol of the COMPRESS-trial. This observational multi-center study includes all patients who suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) where CPR is attempted in four German emergency medical systems (EMS) between January 2020 and December 2022. EMS treatment, in-hospital-treatment and outcome are anonymously reported to the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR). This information is linked with data from the defibrillator, the feedback system and the mechanical CPR device for a complete dataset. Primary endpoint is chest compression quality (complete release, compression rate, compression depth, chest compression fraction, CPR-related injuries). Secondary endpoint is survival (return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), admission to hospital and survival to hospital discharge). The trial is sponsored by GS Elektromedizinische Geräte G. Stemple GmbH. DISCUSSION: This observational multi-center study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression devices and to the efficacy and safety of the corpuls cpr. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS, DRKS-ID DRKS00020819 . Registered 31 July 2020.

Corpuls cpr resuscitation device generates superior emulated flows and pressures than LUCAS II in a mechanical thorax model.

The provision of sufficient chest compression is among the most important factors influencing patient survival during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). One approach to optimize the quality of chest compressions is to use mechanical-resuscitation devices. The aim of this study was to compare a new device for chest compression (corpuls cpr) with an established device (LUCAS II). We used a mechanical thorax model consisting of a chest with variable stiffness and an integrated heart chamber which generated blood flow dependent on the compression depth and waveform. The method of blood-flow generation could be changed between direct cardiac-compression mode and thoracic-pump mode. Different chest-stiffness settings and compression modes were tested to generate various blood-flow profiles. Additionally, an endurance test at high stiffness was performed to measure overall performance and compression consistency. Both resuscitation machines were able to compress the model thorax with a frequency of 100/min and a depth of 5 cm, independent of the chosen chest stiffness. Both devices passed the endurance test without difficulty. The corpuls cpr device was able to generate about 10-40% more blood flow than the LUCAS II device, depending on the model settings. In most scenarios, the corpuls cpr device also generated a higher blood pressure than the LUCAS II. The peak compression forces during CPR were about 30% higher using the corpuls cpr device than with the LUCAS II. In this study, the corpuls cpr device had improved blood flow and pressure outcomes than the LUCAS II device. Further examination in an animal model is required to prove the findings of this preliminary study.