OBJECTIVE: During closed chest compression for cardiac arrest, any increase in coronary perfusion pressure accounts for a proportional increase in myocardial blood flow and therefore the resuscitability of the patient. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and hemodynamic effects of phased chest and abdominal compression-decompression and to compare it with mechanical chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. DESIGN: In this prospective, single-center, phase II study, we compared patients treated with the Datascope Lifestick Resuscitator with patients who had been treated with mechanical precordial compression. SETTING: Emergency department of a tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: We included 31 patients with cardiac arrest who had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: The Lifestick device was used in 20 patients. In 11 patients, mechanical chest compression with the Thumper device was used as a control intervention. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated the safety, feasibility, and hemodynamic effects of both interventions and observed, with the help of echocardiography, the mechanisms through which blood flow was generated. We found no significant difference between the use of the Lifestick device and standard chest compression with the Thumper device in resuscitations. Most operators regarded the Lifestick as a feasible alternative to the Thumper. We could observe a mean increase in coronary perfusion pressure of 9.33 mm Hg (interquartile range, 1.96-14.36; p = .08) and an increase of end-tidal CO2 of 10 mm Hg (interquartile range, 5-16; p = .003) (1333Pa [interquartile range, 665-2133]) during resuscitation with the Lifestick compared with using the Thumper. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study, resuscitation with the Lifestick was found to be safe and feasible. The design of the study and small number of patients included in it limit the conclusions about the hemodynamic effects of the Lifestick.
OBJECTIVE: During closed chest compression for cardiac arrest, any increase in coronary perfusion pressure accounts for a proportional increase in myocardial blood flow and therefore the resuscitability of the patient. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and hemodynamic effects of phased chest and abdominal compression-decompression and to compare it with mechanical chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. DESIGN: In this prospective, single-center, phase II study, we compared patients treated with the Datascope Lifestick Resuscitator with patients who had been treated with mechanical precordial compression. SETTING: Emergency department of a tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: We included 31 patients with cardiac arrest who had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: The Lifestick device was used in 20 patients. In 11 patients, mechanical chest compression with the Thumper device was used as a control intervention. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated the safety, feasibility, and hemodynamic effects of both interventions and observed, with the help of echocardiography, the mechanisms through which blood flow was generated. We found no significant difference between the use of the Lifestick device and standard chest compression with the Thumper device in resuscitations. Most operators regarded the Lifestick as a feasible alternative to the Thumper. We could observe a mean increase in coronary perfusion pressure of 9.33 mm Hg (interquartile range, 1.96-14.36; p = .08) and an increase of end-tidal CO2 of 10 mm Hg (interquartile range, 5-16; p = .003) (1333Pa [interquartile range, 665-2133]) during resuscitation with the Lifestick compared with using the Thumper. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study, resuscitation with the Lifestick was found to be safe and feasible. The design of the study and small number of patients included in it limit the conclusions about the hemodynamic effects of the Lifestick.
Authors: Paul E Pepe; Kenneth A Scheppke; Peter M Antevy; Remle P Crowe; Daniel Millstone; Charles Coyle; Craig Prusansky; Sebastian Garay; Richard Ellis; Raymond L Fowler; Johanna C Moore Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.598