• Jamie L Estock, Holly K Curinga, Airan Li, Lorin B Grieve, and Christopher R Brackney.
• Center for Medical Product End-user Testing, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: jamie.estock@va.gov.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Jan 1;34(1):57-62.

ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to compare chest compression interruption times required to apply, adjust, and remove 2 different automated chest compression (ACC) devices using the same evaluation protocol.MethodsTwenty-nine registered nurses and respiratory therapists used 2 ACC devices in separate resuscitation scenarios involving a patient manikin simulating a 45-year-old man in cardiac arrest in his intensive care unit room. Device presentation was randomized, with half of the participants using LUCAS 2 in the first scenario and the other half using AutoPulse in the first scenario.ResultsThe mean chest compression interruption time to apply the ACC device to the patient was significantly shorter for AutoPulse (mean [M] = 31.6 ± 8.44) than for LUCAS 2 (M = 39.1 ± 11.20; t(28) = 3.65, P = .001). The mean chest compression interruption time to remove the ACC device from the patient and resume manual compressions was also significantly shorter for AutoPulse (M = 6.5 ± 3.65) than for LUCAS 2 (M = 10.1 ± 3.97; t(26) = 3.36, P = .002). There was no difference in the mean chest compression interruption time to adjust the position of the ACC device on the patient between AutoPulse (M = 14.3 ± 5.24) and LUCAS 2 (M = 12.5 ± 3.89; t(23) = -1.45, P = .162).ConclusionsThe results of this study trended in favor of AutoPulse. However, the interruption in chest compression to apply either device to the patient was notably longer than the maximum interruption time recommended by the American Heart Association.Published by Elsevier Inc.

22 keywords...

hide…