ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/instrumentation , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Quality of Health Care , Adult , Emergency Medical Services , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , RegistriesABSTRACT
Trauma-related deaths are not only a relevant medical problem but also a socioeconomic one. The care of a polytraumatized patient is one of the less commonly occurring missions in the rescue and emergency medical services. The aim of this article is to compare the similarities and differences between different course concepts and guidelines in the treatment of trauma-related cardiac arrests (TCA) and to filter out the main focus of each concept. Because of the various approaches in the treatment of polytraumatized patients, there are decisive differences between trauma-related cardiac arrests and cardiac arrests from other causes.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services/methods , Heart Arrest/etiology , Heart Arrest/therapy , Wounds and Injuries/complications , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Guidelines as Topic , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapyABSTRACT
AIMS: To conduct a multicentre, matched-pair cohort analysis comparing glycaemic control and adverse events of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injections (MDI) in paediatric patients. METHODS: Using standardized computer-based prospective documentation, HbA(1c), insulin dose, body mass index-standard deviation score (BMI-SDS), rate of hypoglycaemia, rate of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and intensity of care were analysed in 434 matched pairs during a follow-up period of 3 years after initiation of MDI or CSII. RESULTS: HbA(1c) was significantly lower in the CSII group during the first year of new regimen (CSII 7.5 +/- 0.05 vs. MDI 7.7 +/- 0.06; P < 0.05), but rose to the same level as in the MDI group during year 3. Insulin requirement remained significantly lower in the CSII group. The BMI-SDS increased in both study groups, with no significant difference. The rate of severe hypoglycaemia decreased significantly after the change of regimen (CSII 17.87 +/- 2.85 vs. MDI 25.14 +/- 3.79; P < 0.05) and during year 3 of the regimen, particularly when compared with baseline (-21% vs. -16%). The rate of DKA was lower at baseline in the CSII group and remained significantly lower over all 3 years. Intensity of care was the same in both subsets. CONCLUSIONS: Employing a large cohort, this matched-pair analysis has demonstrated over a 3-year study period that CSII is a safe form of intensive insulin therapy with similar glycaemic effects, but with significantly reduced rates of hypoglycaemia and DKA and a lower insulin requirement when compared with MDI.