Testing mechanical chest compression devices of different design for their suitability for prehospital patient transport - a simulator-based study

BMC Emergency Medicine

Heiko Trentzsch¹  Maximilian Jörgens¹  Stephan Prückner¹  Bernhard Zwissler²  Karl-Georg Kanz³  Jürgen Königer⁴  Heiko Hübner⁵  Torsten Birkholz⁶ 

[1] Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, München, Germany;Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, Munich, Germany;Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Klinik und Poliklinik für Unfallchirurgie, München; Ärztlicher Bezirksbeauftragter Rettungsdienst (ÄBRD) Northwest Upper Bavaria, München, Germany;LAKUMED Klinken - Krankenhaus Vilsbiburg, Klinik für Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin, Vilsbiburg; Ärztlicher Leiter Rettungsdienst (ÄLRD), Landshut District, Germany;Medical Director of Emergency Services, Zweckverband für Rettungsdienst und Feuerwehralarmierung Allgäu, Kempten, Germany;Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Anästhesiologische Klinik, Erlangen; former Ärztlicher Leiter Rettungsdienst (ÄLRD), Amberg District, Germany;

关键词: Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation;    Mechanical chest compressions;    Pre-hospital emergency medical services;    Transport;    Device stability;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12873-021-00409-3

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundMechanical chest compression (mCPR) offers advantages during transport under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Little is known how devices of different design perform en-route. Aim of the study was to measure performance of mCPR devices of different construction-design during ground-based pre-hospital transport.MethodsWe tested animax mono (AM), autopulse (AP), corpuls cpr (CC) and LUCAS2 (L2). The route had 6 stages (transport on soft stretcher or gurney involving a stairwell, trips with turntable ladder, rescue basket and ambulance including loading/unloading). Stationary mCPR with the respective device served as control. A four-person team carried an intubated and bag-ventilated mannequin under mCPR to assess device-stability (displacement, pressure point correctness), compliance with 2015 ERC guideline criteria for high-quality chest compressions (frequency, proportion of recommended pressure depth and compression-ventilation ratio) and user satisfaction (by standardized questionnaire).ResultsAll devices performed comparable to stationary use. Displacement rates ranged from 83% (AM) to 11% (L2). Two incorrect pressure points occurred over 15,962 compressions (0.013%). Guideline-compliant pressure depth was > 90% in all devices. Electrically powered devices showed constant frequencies while muscle-powered AM showed more variability (median 100/min, interquartile range 9). Although physical effort of AM use was comparable (median 4.0 vs. 4.5 on visual scale up to 10), participants preferred electrical devices.ConclusionAll devices showed good to very good performance although device-stability, guideline compliance and user satisfaction varied by design. Our results underline the importance to check stability and connection to patient under transport.

【 授权许可】

CC BY