Assessment of CPR interruptions from transthoracic impedance during use of the LUCAS™ mechanical chest compression system.

BACKGROUND: Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key determinant of outcome following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Recent evidence shows manual chest compressions are typically too shallow, interruptions are frequent and prolonged, and incomplete release between compressions is common. Mechanical chest compression systems have been developed as adjuncts for CPR but interruption of CPR during their use is not well documented. AIM: Analyze interruptions of CPR during application and use of the LUCAS™ chest compression system. METHODS: 54 LUCAS 1 devices operated on compressed air, deployed in 3 major US emergency medical services systems, were used to treat patients with OHCA. Electrocardiogram and transthoracic impedance data from defibrillator/monitors were analyzed to evaluate timing of CPR. Separately, providers estimated their CPR interruption time during application of LUCAS, for comparison to measured application time. RESULTS: In the 32 cases analyzed, compressions were paused a median of 32.5s (IQR 25-61) to apply LUCAS. Providers' estimates correlated poorly with measured pause length; pauses were often more than twice as long as estimated. The average device compression rate was 104/min (SD 4) and the average compression fraction (percent of time compressions were occurring) during mechanical CPR was 0.88 (SD 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Interruptions in chest compressions to apply LUCAS can be <20s but are often much longer, and users do not perceive pause time accurately. Therefore, we recommend better training on application technique, and implementation of systems using impedance data to give users objective feedback on their mechanical chest compression device use.

Defibrillation probability and impedance change between shocks during resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: Technical data now gathered by automated external defibrillators (AEDs) allows closer evaluation of the behavior of defibrillation shocks administered during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We analyzed technical data from a large case series to evaluate the change in transthoracic impedance between shocks, and to assess the heterogeneity of the probability of successful defibrillation across the population. METHODS: We analyzed a series of consecutive cases where AEDs delivered shocks to treat ventricular fibrillation (VF) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Impedance measurements and VF termination efficacy were extracted from electronic records downloaded from biphasic AEDs deployed in three EMS systems. All patients received 200J first shocks; second shocks were 200J or 300J, depending on local protocols. Results presented are median (25th, 75th percentiles). RESULTS: Of 863 cases with defibrillation shocks, 467 contained multiple shocks because the first shock failed to terminate VF (n=61) or VF recurred (n=406). Defibrillation efficacy of subsequent shocks was significantly lower in patients that failed to defibrillate on first shock than in patients that did defibrillate on first shock (162/234=69% vs. 955/1027=93%; p<0.0001). The failed VF terminations were distributed heterogeneously across the population; 5% of patients accounted for 71% of failed shocks. Shock impedance decreased by 1% [0%, 4%] and peak current increased by 1% [0%, 4%] between 200J first and 200J second shocks. Shock impedance decreased 4% [2%, 6%] and current increased 27% [25%, 29%] between 200J first and 300J second shocks. In all 499 pairs of same-energy consecutive shocks, impedance changed by less than 1% in 226 (45%), increased >1% in 124 (25%) and decreased >1% in 149 (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Impedance change between consecutive shocks is minimal and inconsistent. Therefore, to increase current of a subsequent shock requires an increase of the energy setting. Distribution of failed shocks is far from random. First shock defibrillation failure is often predictive of low efficacy for subsequent shocks.