DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.308 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 308: Comparison of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Performance Between Integrated CPR Device Performing Chest Compression and External Defibrillation versus LUCAS3 With Automated External Defibrillator: A Animal and Manikin-Based Pilot Study

Woo Jin Jung, Young-Il Roh, Sung Oh Hwang, Hyeonyoung Im, Yujin Lee, Dahye Im, Kyoung-Chul Cha
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Background: Early chest compression and defibrillation are important components for successful resuscitation. The use of mechanical CPR has increased after the outbreak of COVID-19, and this trend continued in the post-pandemic period. We developed an automatic CPR performing chest compression and external defibrillation simultaneously following current CPR algorithm.

Methods: This study was designed as a study to compare the performance of CPR and AED between automatic CPR apparatus (A-CPR) and commercially proven mechanical CPR device (LUCAS3) plus AED (C-CPR) during CPR in swine cardiac arrest model and the study to evaluate feasibility of A-CPR in simulated cardiac arrest model.

Results: There were no significant differences in hemodynamic variables between the groups. Time to ECG analysis [38.0 sec in A-CPR, 48.0 sec in C-CPR, p =0.010], time to initial shock advice plus subsequent chest compression [46.0 sec in A-CPR, 57.0 sec in C-CPR, p =0.017], time to first defibrillation [48.5 sec in A-CPR, 65.0 sec in C-CPR, p =0.004], charge to shock interval [3.0 sec in A-CPR, 8.0 sec in C-CPR, p =0.001], and hands-off time [11.0 sec in A-CPR, 22.5 sec in C-CPR, p =0.001] were significantly shorter in A-CPR group than C-CPR group. In the simulation study, the pure chest compression time [101 sec in A-CPR, 110 sec in C-CPR, p< 0.001], hands-off time [75 sec in A-CPR, 94 sec in C-CPR, p< 0.001], time from power-on to first chest compression [55 sec in A-CPR, 82 sec in C-CPR, p< 0.001], time to first shock delivery [40 sec in A-CPR, 51 sec in C-CPR, p= 0.001] were significantly shorter in A-CPR group than C-CPR group, respectively. Chest compression fraction showed a significant higher in A-CPR than C-CPR [57% in A-CPR, 54% in C-CPR, p <0.001].

Conclusions: The A-CPR device demonstrated significant time savings effect than conventional mechanical CPR device and automated external defibrillation device. In addition, A-CPR and C-CPR showed similar hemodynamic effects and resuscitation outcomes in a swine model of cardiac arrest

More from our Archive