Poor chest compression quality with mechanical compressions in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomized, cross-over manikin study

IntroductionMechanical chest compression devices are being implemented as an aid in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), despite lack of evidence of improved outcome. This manikin study evaluates the CPR-performance of ambulance crews, who had a mechanical chest compression device implemented in their routine clinical practice 8 months previously. The objectives were to evaluate time to first defibrillation, no-flow time, and estimate the quality of compressions.MethodsThe performance of 21 ambulance crews (ambulance nurse and emergency medical technician) with the authorization to perform advanced life support was studied in an experimental, randomized cross-over study in a manikin setup. Each crew performed two identical CPR scenarios, with and without the aid of the mechanical compression device LUCAS. A computerized manikin was used for data sampling.ResultsThere were no substantial differences in time to first defibrillation or no-flow time until first defibrillation. However, the fraction of adequate compressions in relation to total compressions was remarkably low in LUCAS-CPR (58%) compared to manual CPR (88%) (95% confidence interval for the difference: 13–50%). Only 12 out of the 21 ambulance crews (57%) applied the mandatory stabilization strap on the LUCAS device.ConclusionsThe use of a mechanical compression aid was not associated with substantial differences in time to first defibrillation or no-flow time in the early phase of CPR. However, constant but poor chest compressions due to failure in recognizing and correcting a malposition of the device may counteract a potential benefit of mechanical chest compressions.