Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Automatic Compression—Defibrillation Apparatus: An Animal Study and A Manikin-Based Simulation Study

Background: Chest compression and defibrillation are essential components of cardiac arrest treatment. Mechanical chest compression devices (MCCD) and automated external defibrillators (AED) are used separately in clinical practice. We developed an automated compression–defibrillation apparatus (ACDA) that performs mechanical chest compression and automated defibrillation. We investigated the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with automatic CPR (A-CPR) compared to that with MCCD and AED (conventional CPR: C-CPR). Methods: Pigs were randomized into A-CPR or C-CPR groups: The A-CPR group received CPR+ACDA, and the C-CPR group received CPR+MCCD+AED. Hemodynamic parameters, outcomes, and time variables were measured. During a simulation study, healthcare providers performed a basic life support scenario for manikins with an ACDA, MCCD, and AED, and time variables and chest compression parameters were measured. Results: The animals showed no significant in hemodynamic effects, including aortic pressures, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal CO(2), and resuscitation outcomes between the two groups. In both animal and simulation studies, the time to defibrillation, time to chest compression, and hands-off time were significantly shorter in the A-CPR group than those in the C-CPR group. Conclusions: CPR using ACDA showed similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes as CPR using AED and MCCD separately, with the advantages of a reduction in the time to compression, time to defibrillation, and hands-off time.