Development and validation of an improved mechanical thorax for simulating cardiopulmonary resuscitation with adjustable chest stiffness and simulated blood flow

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mCCD2, neither randomised nor observational, was publicly available at the time this trial was conducted except one yet unpublished observational study, which was initiated in 2017 [ 25 ].…”

“…The majority of mCCD trials have been performed using the Lund University cardiac arrest system (LUCAS™) and its 2nd and 3rd generation successors [9,7], making it the most reliable source for comparative data. Since the last ERC guideline update in 2015, another piston-mounted compression device, the Corpuls™ cpr has been approved for medical use, but currently lacks detailed prospective assessment [10][11][12].…”

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mCCD2, neither randomised nor observational, was publicly available at the time this trial was conducted except one yet unpublished observational study, which was initiated in 2017 (25) .…”

Cadaver models for cardiac arrest: A systematic review and perspectives

“…No preparation or declotting is performed. In this systematic review, 16 (55%) studies used fresh cadavers, and these records studied six main research areas: airway management, seven studies (44%) [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]; mechanical properties of the chest, three studies (19%) [17,31,32]; haemodynamics, two studies (12.5%) [33,34]; defibrillation safety, two studies (12.5%) [22,35], intraosseous access, one study (6%) [36]; and one study explored bispectral index monitoring and used a fresh cadaver for artefact control (6%) [37]. The main advantages reported of using fresh cadavers were: its accurate morphology and tissue conservation making it possible, for example, to reflect the conditions of endotracheal intubation, accurately estimate regurgitation risks in humans having CPR, obtain a stable transthoracic impedance over time and characterise thoracic viscoelastic properties.…”

“…Even if findings obtained on manikin-based studies are sometimes directly extrapolated to clinical practice [16], this needs to be done cautiously. Manikin models are an approximate representation of physiological observations and measurements made on patients [17] and therefore cannot be used to explore pathophysiology to achieve a better understanding.…”