Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report.

INTRODUCTION: Early use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) may improve survival outcomes. Current evidence for such devices uses outcomes from an intention-to-treat (ITT) perspective. We aimed to determine whether early use of mechanical CPR using a LUCAS 2 device results in better outcomes. METHODS: A prospective, randomised, multicentre study was conducted over one year with LUCAS 2 devices in 14 ambulances and manual CPR in 32 ambulances to manage OHCA. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were survival at 24 hours, discharge from hospital and 30 days. RESULTS: Of the 1,274 patients recruited, 1,191 were eligible for analysis. 889 had manual CPR and 302 had LUCAS CPR. From an ITT perspective, outcomes for manual and LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 29.2% and 31.1% (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.45; p = 0.537); 24-hour survival 11.2% and 13.2% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81-1.78; p = 0.352); survival to discharge 3.6% and 4.3% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.62-2.33; p = 0.579); and 30-day survival 3.0% and 4.0% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.66-2.64; p = 0.430), respectively. By as-treated analysis, outcomes for manual, early LUCAS and late LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 28.0%, 36.9% and 24.5%; 24-hour survival 10.6%, 15.5% and 8.2%; survival to discharge 2.9%, 5.8% and 2.0%; and 30-day survival 2.4%, 5.8% and 0.0%, respectively. Adjusted OR for survival with early LUCAS vs. manual CPR was 1.47 after adjustment for other variables (p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: This study showed a survival benefit with LUCAS CPR as compared to manual CPR only, when the device was applied early on-site.

Improved neurologically intact survival with the use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for cardiac arrest presenting to the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: It has been unclear if mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a viable alternative to manual CPR. We aimed to compare resuscitation outcomes before and after switching from manual CPR to load-distributing band (LDB) CPR in a multi-center emergency department (ED) trial. METHODS: We conducted a phased, prospective cohort evaluation with intention-to-treat analysis of adults with non-traumatic cardiac arrest. At these two urban EDs, systems were changed from manual CPR to LDB-CPR. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, with secondary outcome measures of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission and neurological outcome at discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1,011 patients were included in the study, with 459 in the manual CPR phase (January 01, 2004, to August 24, 2007) and 552 patients in the LDB-CPR phase (August 16, 2007, to December 31, 2009). In the LDB phase, the LDB device was applied in 454 patients (82.3%). Patients in the manual CPR and LDB-CPR phases were comparable for mean age, gender and ethnicity. The mean duration from collapse to arrival at ED (min) for manual CPR and LDB-CPR phases was 34:03 (SD16:59) and 33:18 (SD14:57) respectively. The rate of survival to hospital discharge tended to be higher in the LDB-CPR phase (LDB 3.3% vs Manual 1.3%; adjusted OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.47, 4.29). There were more survivors in LDB group with cerebral performance category 1 (good) (Manual 1 vs LDB 12, P = 0.01). Overall performance category 1 (good) was Manual 1 vs LDB 10, P = 0.06. CONCLUSIONS: A resuscitation strategy using LDB-CPR in an ED environment was associated with improved neurologically intact survival on discharge in adults with prolonged, non-traumatic cardiac arrest.

Lung ultrasound in the management of acute decompensated heart failure.

Once thought impracticable, lung ultrasound is now used in patients with a variety of pulmonary processes. This review seeks to describe the utility of lung ultrasound in the management of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). A literature search was carried out on PubMed/Medline using search terms related to the topic. Over three thousand results were narrowed down via title and/or abstract review. Related articles were downloaded for full review. Case reports, letters, reviews and editorials were excluded. Lung ultrasonographic multiple B-lines are a good indicator of alveolar interstitial syndrome but are not specific for ADHF. The absence of multiple B-lines can be used to rule out ADHF as a causative etiology. In clinical scenarios where the assessment of acute dyspnea boils down to single or dichotomous pathologies, lung ultrasound can help rule in ADHF. For patients being treated for ADHF, lung ultrasound can also be used to monitor response to therapy. Lung ultrasound is an important adjunct in the management of patients with acute dyspnea or ADHF.

Ultrasound-guided reduction of distal radius fractures.

INTRODUCTION: In our local emergency departments (EDs), manipulation and reduction (M&R) of distal radius fractures are performed by emergency doctors, with blind manual palpation, using postreduction x-rays to assess adequacy. We sought to study the effectiveness of ultrasound guidance in the reduction of distal radius fractures in adult patients presenting to a regional ED. METHODS: This was a before-and-after study. Eligible patients were adults older than 21 years who presented to the ED with distal radius fractures that required M&R. Sixty-two patients were prospectively enrolled from October 2007 until June 2008, and they underwent ultrasound-guided M&R. The control group was a retrospective cohort of 102 patients who presented from January to June 2007. They had M&R done using the blind manual palpation method. All M&R procedures were performed by doctors within the ED, and supervision was provided by senior emergency physicians. Ultrasound guidance was performed by the senior emergency physicians. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between the ultrasound and control groups were similar. The rate of repeat M&R was reduced in the ultrasound group (1.6% vs 8.8%; P = .056). The postreduction radiographic indices were similar between the 2 groups, although the ultrasound group had improved volar tilt (mean, 5.93° vs 2.61°; P = .048). An incidental finding of a reduced operative rate was also found between the ultrasound and control groups (4.9% vs 16.7%; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound guidance is effective and recommended for routine use in the reduction of distal radius fractures.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation interruptions with use of a load-distributing band device during emergency department cardiac arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim is to measure no-flow time and no-flow ratio before and after an emergency department (ED) switched from manual to a load-distributing band mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device. METHODS: This was a phased, before-after cohort evaluation at an urban tertiary hospital ED. We collected continuous video and chest compression data with the Physiocontrol CodeStat Suite 7.0 for resuscitations during the period just before and after adoption of load-distributing band CPR. All out-of-hospital, nontraumatic cardiac arrest, adult patients were eligible. From February 2007 to July 2008, there were 26 manual and 41 load-distributing band cases. RESULTS: Patients in both phases were comparable in terms of demographics, medical history, witnessed arrest, arrest location, bystander CPR rates, out-of-hospital defibrillation, initial rhythm, and ED defibrillation. The median no-flow time, defined as the sum of all pauses between compressions longer than 1.5 seconds, during the first 5 minutes of resuscitation, was manual CPR 85 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 45 to 112 seconds) versus load-distributing band 104 seconds (IQR 69 to 151 seconds). The mean no-flow ratio, defined as no-flow time divided by segment length, was manual 0.28 versus load-distributing band 0.40 (difference=-0.12; 95% confidence interval -0.22 to -0.02). However, from 5 to 10 minutes into the resuscitation, median no-flow time was manual 85 seconds (IQR 59 to 151 seconds) versus load-distributing band 52 seconds (IQR 34 to 82 seconds) and mean no-flow ratio manual 0.34 versus load-distributing band 0.21 (difference=0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.24). The average time to apply load-distributing band CPR during this period was 152 seconds. CONCLUSION: Application of a load-distributing band in the ED is associated with a higher no-flow ratio than manual CPR in the first 5 minutes of resuscitation. We suggest that attention to team training, rapid application of the device to minimize interruption, and feedback from defibrillator and video recordings may be useful to improve resuscitation team performance.