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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |