Poor chest compression quality with mechanical compressions in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, cross-over manikin study

Abstract

Introduction: Mechanical chest compression devices are being implemented as an aid in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), despite lack of evidence of improved outcome. This manikin study evaluates the CPR-performance of ambulance crews, who had a mechanical chest compression device implemented in their routine clinical practice 8 months previously. The objectives were to evaluate time to first defibrillation, no-flow time, and estimate the quality of compressions.

Methods: The performance of 21 ambulance crews (ambulance nurse and emergency medical technician) with the authorization to perform advanced life support was studied in an experimental, randomized cross-over study in a manikin setup. Each crew performed two identical CPR scenarios, with and without the aid of the mechanical compression device LUCAS. A computerized manikin was used for data sampling.

Results: There were no substantial differences in time to first defibrillation or no-flow time until first defibrillation. However, the fraction of adequate compressions in relation to total compressions was remarkably low in LUCAS-CPR (58%) compared to manual CPR (88%) (95% confidence interval for the difference: 13-50%). Only 12 out of the 21 ambulance crews (57%) applied the mandatory stabilization strap on the LUCAS device.

Conclusions: The use of a mechanical compression aid was not associated with substantial differences in time to first defibrillation or no-flow time in the early phase of CPR. However, constant but poor chest compressions due to failure in recognizing and correcting a malposition of the device may counteract a potential benefit of mechanical chest compressions.