Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions.

BACKGROUND: Novel mechanical chest compression devices offer the possibility to transport cardiac arrest patients with ongoing CPR and might shorten significantly the time delay to post-resuscitation care. METHODS: We simulated an eight-minute cardiac resuscitation situation during ambulance transport using CPR training manikins. We compared teams consisting of two experienced resuscitators with the performance of a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS). RESULTS: CPR-performance by two experienced resuscitators demonstrated ambivalent results. Whereas mean compression rate was within the recommended range (103/min, 95% CI: 93-113/min), mean compression depth was closely below the actually recommended compression depth of >5 cm (49.7 mm, 95% CI: 46.1-53.3mm). Nevertheless, only a mean of two thirds (67%) of all compressions were classified as manually correct (defined as sternal compression depth >5 cm). In contrast, the LUCAS device showed a constant and reliable CPR performance (99.96% correctly applied chest compressions correctly applied within the device programmed parameters, P = 0.0162) with almost no variance between the different sequences. CONCLUSION: The LUCAS CPR device represents a reliable alternative to manual CPR in a moving ambulance vehicle during emergency evacuation. Furthermore, it needs less human resources and is safer for the EMS personnel.

Assessment of indications in interventional cardiology: appropriateness and necessity of coronary angiography and revascularization.

In this study we present appropriateness and necessity assessments of coronary angiographies and revascularizations to determine adherence to Swiss guidelines by using the computerized second-opinion system (SOS) as a reference. We prospectively compared SOS ratings with ratings of treating cardiologists and surgeons for 203 coronary angiographies and 100 percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasties. We also retrospectively assessed indications of 103 coronary artery bypass grafts. SOS ratings of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate indications for coronary angiography were 85.5%, 10%, and 4.5%, respectively, and 99.5%, 0.5%, and 0%, respectively, for revascularization. Corresponding clinicians' ratings were 95%, 4%, and 1% and 100%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. SOS ratings of necessary, uncertain, and unnecessary indications for angiography were 82.4%, 17.6%, and 0%, respectively, and 97%, 3%, and 0%, respectively, for revascularization. Corresponding clinicians' values were 88.2%, 10.6%, and 1.2% and 98%, 2%, and 0%, respectively. Significant statistical differences for coronary angiography were found for patients with acute myocardial infarction and for patients within 12 weeks of myocardial infarction. A high accordance between estimated SOS and clinically estimated appropriateness of procedures was found, which might suggest that the guidelines are valid. Regular validation and updating of the guidelines is highlighted. Possible overuse of angiography in patients within 12 weeks of myocardial infarction may need further investigation.