Gil Joon Suh1, Jaeheung Park2, Jung Chan Lee3, Sang Hoon Na4, Woon Yong Kwon5, Kyung Su Kim6, Taegyun Kim6, Yoon Sun Jung6, Jung-In Ko6, So Mi Shin6, Kyoung Min You7. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea; Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: suhgil@snu.ac.kr. 2. Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University and the Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, 145 Gwanggyo-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Seoul National University Hospital and the Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, Medical Research Center, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea; Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea; Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, Boramae Medical Center, 20 Boramae-ro 5-gil, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 07061, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare the efficacy of the end-tidal CO2-guided automated robot CPR (robot CPR) system with manual CPR and mechanical device CPR. METHODS: We developed the algorithm of the robot CPR system which automatically finds the optimal compression position under the guidance of end-tidal CO2 feedback in swine models of cardiac arrest. Then, 18 pigs after 11 min of cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to one of three groups, robot CPR, LUCAS CPR, and manual CPR groups (n = 6 each group). Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and Neurological Deficit Score 48 h after ROSC were compared. RESULTS: A ROSC was achieved in 5 pigs, 4 pigs, and 3 pigs in the robot CPR, LUCAS CPR, and manual CPR groups, respectively (p = 0.47). Robot CPR showed a significant difference in Neurological Deficit Score 48 h after ROSC compared to manual CPR, whereas LUCAS CPR showed no significant difference over manual CPR. (p = 0.01; Robot versus Manual adjusted p = 0.04, Robot versus LUCAS adjusted p = 0.07, Manual versus LUCAS adjusted p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The end-tidal CO2-guided automated robot CPR system did not significantly improve ROSC rate in a swine model of cardiac arrest. However, robot CPR showed significant improvement of Neurological Deficit Score 48 h after ROSC compared to Manual CPR while LUCAS CPR showed no significant improvement compared to Manual CPR.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare the efficacy of the end-tidal CO2-guided automated robot CPR (robot CPR) system with manual CPR and mechanical device CPR. METHODS: We developed the algorithm of the robot CPR system which automatically finds the optimal compression position under the guidance of end-tidal CO2 feedback in swine models of cardiac arrest. Then, 18 pigs after 11 min of cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to one of three groups, robot CPR, LUCAS CPR, and manual CPR groups (n = 6 each group). Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and Neurological Deficit Score 48 h after ROSC were compared. RESULTS: A ROSC was achieved in 5 pigs, 4 pigs, and 3 pigs in the robot CPR, LUCAS CPR, and manual CPR groups, respectively (p = 0.47). Robot CPR showed a significant difference in Neurological Deficit Score 48 h after ROSC compared to manual CPR, whereas LUCAS CPR showed no significant difference over manual CPR. (p = 0.01; Robot versus Manual adjusted p = 0.04, Robot versus LUCAS adjusted p = 0.07, Manual versus LUCAS adjusted p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The end-tidal CO2-guided automated robot CPR system did not significantly improve ROSC rate in a swine model of cardiac arrest. However, robot CPR showed significant improvement of Neurological Deficit Score 48 h after ROSC compared to Manual CPR while LUCAS CPR showed no significant improvement compared to Manual CPR.
Authors: Joseph Varney; Karam R Motawea; Mostafa R Mostafa; Yossef H AbdelQadir; Merna Aboelenein; Omneya A Kandil; Nancy Ibrahim; Hashim T Hashim; Kimberly Murry; Garrett Jackson; Jaffer Shah; Maty Boury; Ahmed K Awad; Priya Patel; Dina M Awad; Samah S Rozan; Nesreen E Talat Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2022-05-24