Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seewald, S., Dopfer, S., Wnent, J., Jakisch, B., Heller, M., Lefering, R., Gräsner, JT
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33632277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00855-9
_version_ 1783655192594481152
author Seewald, S.
Dopfer, S.
Wnent, J.
Jakisch, B.
Heller, M.
Lefering, R.
Gräsner, JT
author_facet Seewald, S.
Dopfer, S.
Wnent, J.
Jakisch, B.
Heller, M.
Lefering, R.
Gräsner, JT
author_sort Seewald, S.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7905890
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79058902021-02-26 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) Seewald, S. Dopfer, S. Wnent, J. Jakisch, B. Heller, M. Lefering, R. Gräsner, JT Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Study Protocol 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. BioMed Central 2021-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7905890/ /pubmed/33632277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00855-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Seewald, S.
Dopfer, S.
Wnent, J.
Jakisch, B.
Heller, M.
Lefering, R.
Gräsner, JT
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)
title 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)
title_full 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)
title_fullStr 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)
title_full_unstemmed 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)
title_short 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)
title_sort 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)
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7905890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33632277
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00855-9
work_keys_str_mv AT seewalds differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress
AT dopfers differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress
AT wnentj differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress
AT jakischb differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress
AT hellerm differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress
AT leferingr differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress
AT grasnerjt differencesbetweenmanualcprandcorpulscprinregardtoqualityandoutcomestudyprotocolofthecomparingobservationalmulticenterprospectiveregistrystudyonresuscitationcompress