Clinical paperCPR-related injuries after manual or mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device: A multicentre study of victims after unsuccessful resuscitation☆
Introduction
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a desperate, potentially life-saving measure to regain spontaneous circulation. Subsequent reports about injuries due to CPR have not changed the way it has been performed.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 The use of mechanical devices in CPR has been linked to a higher incidence of injuries compared to standard CPR with manual chest compressions (manual CPR).6, 7, 8 The LUCAS™ device, which delivered mechanical chest compressions (mechanical CPR), was introduced in 2002. Indications of injuries associated with the device's use revealed the need for further studies looking into its safety.9, 10 Preliminary data from two as yet unpublished studies had diverging results and a pilot study revealed no difference in incidence of injuries between the two methods of chest compressions in CPR.11, 12, 13 Therefore, we conducted a multicentre autopsy trial and hypothesised that there would be no difference in CPR-related injuries by manual chest compressions compared to mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device in patients after unsuccessful resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
This prospective multicentre study, with fixed dates from January 15, 2008 to August 31, 2012, was reviewed and approved by the human ethics committee in Uppsala, Sweden. This committee waived the need for informed consent.
Results
Of the 222 patients included, 83 patients (37.4%) had been treated with manual CPR only and 139 patients (62.6%) with mechanical CPR including manual CPR prior to mechanical CPR. There was no difference in age, gender or duration of CPR by EMS personnel between the two groups and there was no correlation between the two latter parameters and the incidence of rib or sternal fractures.
In the patients receiving mechanical CPR, the average duration of initial manual chest compressions by EMS
Discussion
In this prospective multicentre autopsy trial comprising patients with unsuccessful CPR, chest compression-related injuries were more common in patients after mechanical CPR than manual CPR. There were more patients with rib fractures due to mechanical CPR but the median numbers of rib fractures were equal in both groups. There was also no difference in the number of multiple rib fractures or sternal fractures.
In this study, sternal fractures were more frequent than shown before (1.3–43.3%) and
Conclusions
In patients with unsuccessful CPR after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, rib fractures were more frequent after mechanical CPR but there was no difference in the incidence of sternal fractures. No injury was deemed fatal by the pathologist.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors David Smekal, Erik Lindgren, Håkan Sandler and Jakob Johansson declare no conflict of interest. Sten Rubertsson was the PI for the LINC trial and has done some consultant work for Physiocontrol/Jolife AB.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express gratitude to EMS personnel performing CPR and the pathologists and autopsy technicians at the different sites. A personal research grant was given to David Smekal by the Uppsala-Örebro Regional Research Council in Sweden (RFR-212911).
References (39)
- et al.
Complications of cardiac resuscitation
Chest
(1987) - et al.
Increased frequency of thorax injuries with ACD-CPR
Resuscitation
(1999) Automatic and manual mechanical external chest compression devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Resuscitation
(2000)Resuscitation great. A history of mechanical devices for providing external chest compressions
Resuscitation
(2007)- et al.
Active compression–decompression CPR necessitates follow-up post mortem
Resuscitation
(2006) - et al.
Forensic aspects of automated chest compression
Resuscitation
(2008) - et al.
Injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a comparison between LUCAS mechanical CPR and standard CPR
Resuscitation
(2008) - et al.
Does the LUCAS device increase trauma during CPR?
Resuscitation
(2008) - et al.
No difference in autopsy detected injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions compared with mechanical compressions with the LUCAS device – a pilot study
Resuscitation
(2009) - et al.
Multidetector CT findings of skeletal chest injuries secondary to cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Resuscitation
(2011)
Chest injury following cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective computed tomography evaluation
Resuscitation
Comparison of computed tomography and autopsy in detection of injuries after unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Resuscitation
Autopsy is more sensitive than computed tomography in detection of LUCAS-CPR related non-dislocated chest fractures
Resuscitation
Effect of implementation of new resuscitation guidelines on quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival
Resuscitation
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2000 for Adult Advanced Life Support. A statement from the Advanced Life Support Working Group (1) and approved by the Executive Committee of the European Resuscitation Council
Resuscitation
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2005. Section 4. Adult advanced life support
Resuscitation
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010. Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators
Resuscitation
Deeper chest compression – more complications for cardiac arrest patients?
Resuscitation
Chest wall injuries following cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Resuscitation
Cited by (129)
Compression-associated injuries using CLOVER3000 device in non-survivor patients of OHCA: A retrospective cohort study
2023, American Journal of Emergency MedicineMechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation's Role in Helicopter Air Ambulances: A Narrative Review
2022, Air Medical JournalMechanical chest compression devices under special circumstances
2022, Resuscitation
- ☆
A Spanish translated version of the summary of this article appears as Appendix in the final online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.09.017.