Manual versus Mechanical Chest Compressions on Surfaces of Varying Softness with or without Backboards: A Randomized, Crossover Manikin Study

Putzer, Gabriel; Fiala, Anna E.; Braun, Patrick; Neururer, Sabrina; Biechl, Karin; Keilig, Bernhard; Ploner, Werner; Fop, Ernst; Paal, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.10.002

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the 'absolute hands-off time', defined as the sum of all periods during which no hand is placed on the chest minus the time used for ventilation with ARM, was 18 (IQR, 17-19) seconds, and turned out to be significantly shorter than in manual CPR conditions (32 [IQR, 29-38] seconds; p < 0.001). This relationship is confirmed by, among others, Putzer et al [29,30] and Fischer et al [26]. In these studies, the use of mechanical CC devices also reduced the hands-off time as compared with manual CPR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Performance of Chest Compressions With the Use of the New Mechanical Chest Compression Machine Lifeline Arm: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study in Novice Physicians

Aleksandrowicz¹,

Madziała²,

Iskrzycki³

et al. 2016

Disaster Emerg Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: The Lifeline ARM (ARM; Defibtech, Guilford, USA) is a new mechanical chest compression device. The aim of the current study was to compare the quality of single rescuer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with and without ARM device. METHODS: In this randomized crossover manikin trial forty-four novice physicians participated. Thirty minutes of training was allotted for manual CPR and then for the ARM. The following day, every participant performed a 2-min CPR single rescuer scenario, once with manual CPR and once with the ARM. The primary outcome measure of the study is effective compression; defined as compressions performed with the correct of depth of 50-60 mm, complete decompressions, and the correct pressure point of CC. RESULTS: The ARM, compared with manual CPR, carried out more effective compressions (96 [interquartile range, IQR; 94-98] vs. 36 [IQR; 33-41]%, p < 0.001). The compressions preformed with the use of the ARM, furthermore, were with a correct CC rate (100 [IQR; 99-101] vs. 130 [IQR; 124-140] min-1 ; p < 0.001) and a correct depth (97 [IQR; 96-98] vs. 37 [IQR; 31-39]%; p < 0.001). The result of resuscitation with ARM was significantly better than manual CPR (p < 0.05) for all of the analyzed chest compression parameters (percentage of CC too deep, percentage of CC too shallow, percentage of correct pressure points and percentage of correct pressure releases), as well as for the ventilation parameters (tidal volume, ventilation rate, minute-volume, gastric inflations). CONCLUSION: During this simulated trial, when CPR was performed by novice physicians, the ARM significantly improved the quality of CPR. Further clinical trials should provide motivation to confirm the potential benefits of ARM use during CPR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Performance of Chest Compressions With the Use of the New Mechanical Chest Compression Machine Lifeline Arm: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study in Novice Physicians

Aleksandrowicz¹,

Madziała²,

Iskrzycki³

et al. 2016

Disaster Emerg Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mechanical thoracic compression devices have certain advantages over manual CC: they provide a stable frequency, depth and duration of compression-decompression of the chest. Thus, the characteristics of chest compressions remain stable over a long period of time and, since the rescuer doesn’t have to deliver the chest compressions, he can focus on other important duties during CPR [ 8 , 9 ]. These machines use either an automatic piston or a band-like mechanism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between manual and mechanical chest compressions during resuscitation in a pediatric animal model of asphyxial cardiac arrest

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsChest compressions (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are not sufficiently effective in many circumstances. Mechanical CC could be more effective than manual CC, but there are no studies comparing both techniques in children. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of manual and mechanical chest compressions with Thumper device in a pediatric cardiac arrest animal model.Material and methodsAn experimental model of asphyxial cardiac arrest (CA) in 50 piglets (mean weight 9.6 kg) was used. Animals were randomized to receive either manual CC or mechanical CC using a pediatric piston chest compressions device (Life-Stat®, Michigan Instruments). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), arterial blood gases and end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) values were measured at 3, 9, 18 and 24 minutes after the beginning of resuscitation.ResultsThere were no significant differences in MAP, DAP, arterial blood gases and etCO2 between chest compression techniques during CPR. Survival rate was higher in the manual CC (15 of 30 = 50%) than in the mechanical CC group (3 of 20 = 15%) p = 0.016. In the mechanical CC group there was a non significant higher incidence of haemorrhage through the endotracheal tube (45% vs 20%, p = 0.114).ConclusionsIn a pediatric animal model of cardiac arrest, mechanical piston chest compressions produced lower survival rates than manual chest compressions, without any differences in hemodynamic and respiratory parameters.

show abstract

“…Many studies have shown low effectiveness of CC performed by lay people without medical training [3,4]. Research conducted by Kurowski et al [5] also points out the insufficient quality of CC by paramedics during simulated CPR.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the use of a chest compression system in children improve the effectiveness of chest compressions? A randomised crossover simulation pilot study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c tBackground: Providing high-quality chest compressions is a key element affecting the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Aim:To evaluate the effectiveness of standard (manual) chest compressions (Standard BLS, standard basic life support) and those performed with the use of the Lifeline ARM chest compression system (ARM; Defibtech). Methods:The study was designed as a randomised crossover study. In total, 37 nurses participated in the study. They performed a randomized 2-min asynchronous resuscitation using the Standard BLS method or the ARM system. The following parameters were measured: the total number of chest compressions, the frequency of compressions (min -1 ), compression depth (mm), and the percentage of correctly performed chest compressions and total chest decompressions. The authors also analysed the participants' preferences concerning the use of particular CPR techniques in the clinical setting. Results:The results obtained during the simulation study with the application of the ARM system were statistically significantly better than those with the Standard BLS method (p < 0.05) in the case of all analysed parameters.Conclusions: During the simulated child resuscitation performed by the nurses, the application of the Lifeline ARM chest compression system significantly improved the effectiveness of chest compressions.

show abstract

Manual versus Mechanical Chest Compressions on Surfaces of Varying Softness with or without Backboards: A Randomized, Crossover Manikin Study

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Performance of Chest Compressions With the Use of the New Mechanical Chest Compression Machine Lifeline Arm: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study in Novice Physicians

Performance of Chest Compressions With the Use of the New Mechanical Chest Compression Machine Lifeline Arm: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study in Novice Physicians

Comparison between manual and mechanical chest compressions during resuscitation in a pediatric animal model of asphyxial cardiac arrest

Does the use of a chest compression system in children improve the effectiveness of chest compressions? A randomised crossover simulation pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About