According to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines, the use of mechanical chest compression devices is a reasonable alternative in situations where manual chest compression is impractical or compromises provider safety. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of a recently developed chest compression device (Corpuls CPR) with an established system (LUCAS II) in a pig model. Methods. Pigs (n = 5/group) in provoked ventricular fibrillation were left untreated for 5 minutes, after which 15 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed with chest compressions. After 15 min, defibrillation was performed every 2 min if necessary, and up to 3 doses of adrenaline were given. If there was no return of spontaneous circulation after 25 min, the experiment was terminated. Coronary perfusion pressure, carotid blood flow, end-expiratory CO2, regional oxygen saturation by near infrared spectroscopy, blood gas, and local organ perfusion with fluorescent labelled microspheres were measured at baseline and during resuscitation. Results. Animals treated with Corpuls CPR had significantly higher mean arterial pressures during resuscitation, along with a detectable trend of greater carotid blood flow and organ perfusion. Conclusion. Chest compressions with the Corpuls CPR device generated significantly higher mean arterial pressures than compressions performed with the LUCAS II device.

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.

No abstract