Dataset Information

A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recently, we developed a chest compression device that can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR and be remotely controlled to minimize rescuer exposure to infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare its performance with conventional mechanical CPR device in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.

Materials and methods

A prototype of a remote-controlled automatic chest compression device (ROSCER) that can change the chest compression position without interruption during CPR was developed, and its performance was compared with LUCAS 3 in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, 16 male pigs were randomly assigned into the two groups, ROSCER CPR (n = 8) and LUCAS 3 CPR (n = 8), respectively. During 5 minutes of CPR, hemodynamic parameters including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, common carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure were measured.

Results

In the compression performance test using a mannequin, compression depth, compression time, decompression time, and plateau time were almost equal between ROSCER and LUCAS 3. In a swine model of cardiac arrest, coronary perfusion pressure showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.409). Systolic aortic pressure and carotid blood flow were higher in the LUCAS 3 group than in the ROSCER group during 5 minutes of CPR (p < 0.001, p = 0.008, respectively). End-tidal CO2 level of the ROSCER group was initially lower than that of the LUCAS 3 group, but was higher over time (p = 0.022). A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for ROSC also showed no difference between the two groups (p = 0.46).

Conclusion

The prototype of a remote-controlled automated chest compression device can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR. In a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest, the device showed no inferior performance to a conventional mechanical CPR device.

SUBMITTER: Suh GJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10798619 | biostudies-literature | 2024

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.

Suh Gil Joon GJ Kim Taegyun T Kim Kyung Su KS Kwon Woon Yong WY Kim Hayoung H Park Heesu H Wang Gaonsorae G Park Jaeheung J Hur Sungmoon S Sim Jaehoon J Kim Kyunghwan K Lee Jung Chan JC Shin Dong Ah DA Cho Woo Sang WS Kim Byung Jun BJ Kwon Soyoon S Lee Ye Ji YJ

PloS one 20240119 1

<h4>Background</h4>Recently, we developed a chest compression device that can move the chest compression position without interruption during CPR and be remotely controlled to minimize rescuer exposure to infectious diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare its performance with conventional mechanical CPR device in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A prototype of a remote-controlled automatic chest compression device (ROSCER) that can change t ...[more]

PMID: 38241416

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis study was designed to compare the outcomes of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STD-CPR) and combined chest compression and abdominal compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CO-CPR) with a new device following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Moreover, we investigated whether patient prognosis improved with this combination treatment.MethodsThis trial was a single-centre, prospective, randomized trial, and a blinded assessment of the outcomes was performed. A total of 297 consecutive patients with OHCA were initially screened, and 278 were randomized to the STD-CPR group (n = 135) or the CO-CPR group (n = 143). We compared the proportions of patients who achieved a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survived to hospital admission and survived to hospital discharge. In addition, we also performed the Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test at the end of the follow-up period to compare the survival curves of the two groups.ResultsThe differences were not statistically significant in the proportion of patients who achieved ROSC [31/135 (23.0%) versus 35/143 (24.5%)] and survived to hospital admission [28/135 (20.7%) versus 33/143 (23.1%)] between the CO-CPR group and STD-CPR group. However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived to hospital discharge [16/135 (11.9%) versus 7/143 (4.9%)] between the two groups. Nine patients (6.7%) in the CO-CPR group and 2 patients (1.4%) in the STD group showed good neurological outcomes according to the cerebral performance category (CPC) scale score, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the patients in the CO-CPR group achieved better survival benefits than those in the STD-CPR group at the end of the follow-up period (log-rank P = 0.007).ConclusionCO-CPR was more beneficial than STD-CPR in terms of survival benefits in patients who have suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registered number: ChiCTR2100049581 . Registered 30 July 2021- Retrospectively registered. http://www.medresman.org.cn/uc/index.aspx .

Project description:BackgroundAutomatic chest compression devices (ACCDs) can promote high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and are widely used worldwide. Early application of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) along with high-quality CPR is crucial for favorable outcomes in patients with cardiac arrest. Here, we developed an automated CPR (A-CPR) apparatus that combines ACCD and AED and evaluated its performance in a pilot animal-based study.MethodsEleven pigs (n = 5, A-CPR group; n = 6, ACCD CPR and AED [conventional CPR (C-CPR)] group) were enrolled in this study. After 2 min observation without any treatment following ventricular fibrillation induction, CPR with a 30:2 compression/ventilation ratio was performed for 6 min, mimicking basic life support (BLS). A-CPR or C-CPR was applied immediately after BLS, and resuscitation including chest compression and defibrillation, was performed following a voice prompt from the A-CPR device or AED. Hemodynamic parameters, including aortic pressure, right atrial pressure, coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, and end-tidal carbon dioxide, were monitored during resuscitation. Time variables, including time to start rhythm analysis, time to charge, time to defibrillate, and time to subsequent chest compression, were also measured.ResultsThere were no differences in baseline characteristics, except for arterial carbon dioxide pressure (39 in A-CPR vs. 33 in C-CPR, p = 0.034), between the two groups. There were no differences in hemodynamic parameters between the groups. However, time to charge (28.9 ± 5.6 s, A-CPR group; 47.2 ± 12.4 s, C-CPR group), time to defibrillate (29.1 ± 7.2 s, A-CPR group; 50.5 ± 12.3 s, C-CPR group), and time to subsequent chest compression (32.4 ± 6.3 s, A-CPR group; 56.3 ± 10.7 s, C-CPR group) were shorter in the A-CPR group than in the C-CPR group (p = 0.015, 0.034 and 0.02 respectively).ConclusionsA-CPR can provide effective chest compressions and defibrillation, thereby shortening the time required for defibrillation.

Dataset Information

A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A remote-controlled automatic chest compression device capable of moving compression position during CPR: A pilot study in a mannequin and a swine model of cardiac arrest.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets