Holger Gässler1, Lara Kurka2, Stefan Rauch2, Stephan Seewald3, Martin Kulla4, Matthias Fischer2. 1. German Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Pain Therapy, Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: holger.gaessler@uni-ulm.de. 2. Alb-Fils-Kliniken, Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Göppingen, Germany. 3. University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine and Institute for Emergency Medicine, Kiel, Germany. 4. German Armed Forces Hospital Ulm, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Pain Therapy, Ulm, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: According to the current resuscitation guidelines, the use of mechanical chest compression devices could be considered under special circumstances like transport with ongoing resuscitation or long-term resuscitation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether survival is improved using mechanical devices under such circumstances. METHODS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from all high-quality data centres of the German Resuscitation Registry from 2007 to 2020 were investigated. The use of mechanical devices was compared separately for transport with ongoing resuscitation, prolonged resuscitation (>45 min), and resuscitation with fibrinolytic agents applied. Baseline characteristics, 30-day survival/discharged alive, and neurological function at discharge were analysed descriptively; and 30-day survival/discharged alive was additionally analysed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, patients who were treated with a mechanical device tended to be younger and were significantly more likely to have a witnessed cardiac arrest and a shockable initial rhythm. During the study period, 4,851 patients were transported to hospital with ongoing resuscitation (devices used in 44.2%). The 30-day survival was equal (odds ratio, OR: 1.13, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.60). In 3,920 cases, a resuscitation duration > 45 min was documented (9.5% with device). When a device was used, 30-day survival was significantly increased (OR 2.33, 95%-CI: 1.30-4.15). Fibrinolytic agents were used in 2,106 patients (22.2% with device). Here, 30-day survival was significantly worse with a device (OR: 0.52, 95%-CI: 0.30-0.91). CONCLUSION: Mechanical devices are not associated with better survival when used during transport, but rescuer safety could still be an important argument for their use. Devices are associated with better survival in prolonged resuscitation, but worse survival when a fibrinolytic was used.
AIM: According to the current resuscitation guidelines, the use of mechanical chest compression devices could be considered under special circumstances like transport with ongoing resuscitation or long-term resuscitation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether survival is improved using mechanical devices under such circumstances. METHODS: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests from all high-quality data centres of the German Resuscitation Registry from 2007 to 2020 were investigated. The use of mechanical devices was compared separately for transport with ongoing resuscitation, prolonged resuscitation (>45 min), and resuscitation with fibrinolytic agents applied. Baseline characteristics, 30-day survival/discharged alive, and neurological function at discharge were analysed descriptively; and 30-day survival/discharged alive was additionally analysed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, patients who were treated with a mechanical device tended to be younger and were significantly more likely to have a witnessed cardiac arrest and a shockable initial rhythm. During the study period, 4,851 patients were transported to hospital with ongoing resuscitation (devices used in 44.2%). The 30-day survival was equal (odds ratio, OR: 1.13, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.60). In 3,920 cases, a resuscitation duration > 45 min was documented (9.5% with device). When a device was used, 30-day survival was significantly increased (OR 2.33, 95%-CI: 1.30-4.15). Fibrinolytic agents were used in 2,106 patients (22.2% with device). Here, 30-day survival was significantly worse with a device (OR: 0.52, 95%-CI: 0.30-0.91). CONCLUSION: Mechanical devices are not associated with better survival when used during transport, but rescuer safety could still be an important argument for their use. Devices are associated with better survival in prolonged resuscitation, but worse survival when a fibrinolytic was used.