Volume 2 Supplement 1

ESICM LIVES 2014

Open Access

1036. Comparison of the hemodynamic parameters of two external chest compression devices (LUCAS versus AUTOPULSE) in a swine model of ventricular fibrillation

  • C Pantazopoulos1,
  • I Floros1,
  • A Mega1,
  • C Rigas1,
  • I Pavleas1,
  • P Vernikos1,
  • N Archontoulis1,
  • D Xanthis1,
  • N Iacovidou2 and
  • T Xanthos3
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental20142(Suppl 1):P83

https://doi.org/10.1186/2197-425X-2-S1-P83

Published: 26 September 2014

Introduction

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.

Objectives

To compare 2 different external chest compression devices (LUCAS and AUTOPULSE) regarding the hemodynamic effects during cardiorespiratory resuscitation.

Methods

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. Electrocardiography, intra-arterial pressure (carotid artery) and Swan-Ganz catheter were used to monitor central venous pressure, cardiac output, cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance and pulmonary vascular resistance prior to ventricular fibrillation and during resuscitation in both groups.

Results

The hemodynamic parameters demonstrated that there is no statistical difference in mean arterial pressure between the 2 devices but there was statistically significant difference (P< 0.05) in the cardiac output with LUCAS generating higher values than AUTOPULSE.

Conclusions

The mean arterial pressure that is produced by the 2 devices is similar, while the cardiac output produced by LUCAS is higher than AUTOPULSE.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Intensive Care Unit, General Hospital of Athens Laiko
(2)
Medical School, Neonatology, University of Athens
(3)
Medical School, M.Sc. Programme in Cardiorespiratory Resuscitation, University of Athens

References

  1. 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
  2. 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

Copyright

© Pantazopoulos et al; licensee Springer. 2014

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.

Advertisement