Cargando…

Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries. OBJECTIVES: To c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruemmler, Robert, Stein, Jakob, Duenges, Bastian, Renz, Miriam, Hartmann, Erik Kristoffer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8179713/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34090500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00892-4
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries. OBJECTIVES: To compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomised trial. ANIMALS: Eighteen male German landrace pigs. METHODS: Ventricular fibrillation was induced in anaesthetised and instrumented pigs and the animals were randomised into two intervention groups. Mechanical CPR was initiated by means of LUCAS™ 2 (mCCD1) or Corpuls™ cpr (mCCD2) device. Advanced life support was applied for a maximum of 10 cycles and animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 8 h. Ventilation/perfusion measurements were performed and blood gas analyses were taken. Thoracic injuries were assessed via a standardised damage score. RESULTS: Five animals of the mCCD1 group and one animal of the mCCD2 group achieved ROSC (p = 0.048). Only the mCCD1 animals survived until the end of the monitoring period (p < 0.01). MCCD1 animals showed less pulmonary shunt (p = 0.025) and higher normal V/Q (p = 0.017) during CPR. MCCD2 animals showed significantly more severe thoracic injuries (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: The LUCAS 2 device shows superior resuscitation outcomes and less thoracic injuries compared to Corpuls cpr when used for experimental CPR in juvenile pigs. Researchers should be aware that different mCCDs for experimental studies may significantly influence the respective outcome of resuscitation studies and affect comparability of different trials. Controlled human and animal CPR studies and a standardised post-resuscitation injury evaluation could help to confirm potential hazards. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial approval number: G16–1-042-E4. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00892-4.