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
_version_ 1783703845502713856
author Ruemmler, Robert
Stein, Jakob
Duenges, Bastian
Renz, Miriam
Hartmann, Erik Kristoffer
author_facet Ruemmler, Robert
Stein, Jakob
Duenges, Bastian
Renz, Miriam
Hartmann, Erik Kristoffer
author_sort Ruemmler, Robert
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8179713
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81797132021-06-07 Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial Ruemmler, Robert Stein, Jakob Duenges, Bastian Renz, Miriam Hartmann, Erik Kristoffer Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research 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. BioMed Central 2021-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8179713/ /pubmed/34090500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00892-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Original Research
Ruemmler, Robert
Stein, Jakob
Duenges, Bastian
Renz, Miriam
Hartmann, Erik Kristoffer
Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
title Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
title_full Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
title_fullStr Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
title_full_unstemmed Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
title_short Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
title_sort standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial
topic Original Research
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT ruemmlerrobert standardizedpostresuscitationdamageassessmentoftwomechanicalchestcompressiondevicesaprospectiverandomizedlargeanimaltrial
AT steinjakob standardizedpostresuscitationdamageassessmentoftwomechanicalchestcompressiondevicesaprospectiverandomizedlargeanimaltrial
AT duengesbastian standardizedpostresuscitationdamageassessmentoftwomechanicalchestcompressiondevicesaprospectiverandomizedlargeanimaltrial
AT renzmiriam standardizedpostresuscitationdamageassessmentoftwomechanicalchestcompressiondevicesaprospectiverandomizedlargeanimaltrial
AT hartmannerikkristoffer standardizedpostresuscitationdamageassessmentoftwomechanicalchestcompressiondevicesaprospectiverandomizedlargeanimaltrial