Corpuls cpr resuscitation device generates superior emulated flows and pressures than LUCAS II in a mechanical thorax model

Abstract

The provision of sufficient chest compression is among the most important factors influencing patient survival during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). One approach to optimize the quality of chest compressions is to use mechanical-resuscitation devices. The aim of this study was to compare a new device for chest compression (corpuls cpr) with an established device (LUCAS II). We used a mechanical thorax model consisting of a chest with variable stiffness and an integrated heart chamber which generated blood flow dependent on the compression depth and waveform. The method of blood-flow generation could be changed between direct cardiac-compression mode and thoracic-pump mode. Different chest-stiffness settings and compression modes were tested to generate various blood-flow profiles. Additionally, an endurance test at high stiffness was performed to measure overall performance and compression consistency. Both resuscitation machines were able to compress the model thorax with a frequency of 100/min and a depth of 5 cm, independent of the chosen chest stiffness. Both devices passed the endurance test without difficulty. The corpuls cpr device was able to generate about 10-40% more blood flow than the LUCAS II device, depending on the model settings. In most scenarios, the corpuls cpr device also generated a higher blood pressure than the LUCAS II. The peak compression forces during CPR were about 30% higher using the corpuls cpr device than with the LUCAS II. In this study, the corpuls cpr device had improved blood flow and pressure outcomes than the LUCAS II device. Further examination in an animal model is required to prove the findings of this preliminary study.

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

“…MCCD2 has been introduced for medical use in 2015 and is the only mCCD approved for the use on children 8 years and older, most likely due to its adjustable compression depth range between 2 to 6 cm and different compression stamp sizes. While the device showed significantly higher generated blood pressure [ 12 ] and higher mechanical pressures applied to the thoracic wall compared to mCCD1 in a porcine trial [ 10 , 11 ], the already small experimental groups of 5 animals per device had been further reduced by two unplanned animal deaths before the start of the experiment and one device failure [ 24 ], which highlights the need of further assessment. No clinical data on human treatment or assessment on mCCD2, neither randomised nor observational, was publicly available at the time this trial was conducted except one yet unpublished observational study, which was initiated in 2017 [ 25 ].…”

“…However, the fact that not one animal survived after mCCD2 treatment combined with the damage severity confirmed in those animals causes our group to be confident that those results are sound. One explanation could be the aforementioned higher mechanical force applied during mCCD2 chest compression, with a peak of over 500 Nm compared to about 350 Nm with mCCD1 [ 10 ]. This could be due to the differently designed stamps with the mCCD1 providing a stamp with a diameter of 6 cm and an additional 13 cm diameter rubber suction cup and mCCD2 providing an adult stamp with 8 cm diameter without rubber lining.…”

Standardized Post-Resuscitation Damage Assessment of Two Mechanical Chest Compression Devices: A Prospective Randomized Large Animal Trial

“…While the device showed signi cantly higher generated blood pressure (12) and higher mechanical pressures applied to the thoracic wall compared to mCCD1 in a porcine trial (10,11) , the already small experimental groups of 5 animals per device had been further reduced by two unplanned animal deaths before the start of the experiment and one device failure (24) , which highlights the need of further assessment. No clinical data on human treatment or assessment on mCCD2, neither randomised nor observational, was publicly available at the time this trial was conducted except one yet unpublished observational study, which was initiated in 2017 (25) .…”

“…However, the fact that not one animal survived after mCCD2 treatment combined with the damage severity con rmed in those animals causes our group to be con dent that those results are sound. One explanation could be the aforementioned higher mechanical force applied during mCCD2 chest compression, with a peak of over 500 N m compared to about 350 N m with mCCD1 (10) . This could be due to the differently designed stamps with the mCCD1 providing a stamp with a diameter of 6 cm and an additional 13 cm diameter rubber suction cup and mCCD2 providing an adult stamp with 8 cm diameter without rubber lining.…”

Military application of mechanical CPR devices: a pressing requirement?

“…The Corpuls CPR is a compact device offering easy access to the patient’s thorax with radiolucent boards to assist coronary angiography. This device has only been studied in mechanical thorax models in comparison to the LUCAS 220 and has yet to be studied even in animal models.…”