0391. Comparison of the histopathologic effects on the lungs of two external chest compression devices (lucas versus autopulse) in a swine model of ventricular fibrillation
© Pantazopoulos et al; licensee Springer. 2014
Published: 26 September 2014
Given the difficulty of performing efficient CPR compressions, technology has turned to automaticity. LUCAS device has a pneumatically driven piston to compress the heart and uses active decompression suction on the upstroke. AUTOPULSE is a load distributing band compressor, that is mechanically actuated and battery driven. It provides both direct compression and semi-circumferential thoracic compression.
Lung injury may occur during cardiorespiratory resuscitation with external chest compression devices. Aim of this study is to compare 2 different external chest compression devices (LUCAS and AUTOPULSE) regarding differences in lung injury that they may cause.
Forty (40) pigs were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Group L (LUCAS), n=20 and Group A (AUTOPULSE), n=20. After anesthesia, ventricular fibrillation was induced. Five minutes post-cardiac arrest without treatment, resuscitation was initiated. After resuscitation, lung biopsy via a mini-thoracotomy was obtained (right lung lower lobe).
Histopathology findings revealed a heterogeneous interstitial infiltrate and vascular congestion in all samples studied. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. (P>0.05)
LUCAS and AUTOPULSE devices present no histopathological differences concerning lung injury after cardiorespiratory resuscitation.
- Axelsson C, et al.: Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a pilot study. Resuscitation 2006,71(1):47–55. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.02.011PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ong ME, et al.: Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. JAMA 2006,295(22):2629–37.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.