AIM: To compare the variety and incidence of internal injuries after manual and mechanical chest compressions during CPR. METHODS: In a prospective pilot study conducted in two Swedish cities, 85 patients underwent autopsy after unsuccessful resuscitation attempts with manual or mechanical chest compressions, the latter with the LUCAS device. Autopsy was performed and the results were evaluated according to a specified protocol. RESULTS: No injuries were found in 26/47 patients in the manual group and in 16/38 patients in the LUCAS group (p=0.28). Sternal fracture was present in 10/47 in the manual group and 11/38 in the LUCAS group (p=0.46), and there were multiple rib fractures (> or =3 fractures) in 13/47 in the manual group and in 17/38 in the LUCAS group (p=0.12). Bleeding in the ventral mediastinum was noted in 2/47 and 3/38 in the manual and LUCAS groups respectively (p=0.65), retrosternal bleeding in 1/47 and 3/38 (p=0.32), epicardial bleeding in 1/47 and 4/38 (p=0.17), and haemopericardium in 4/47 and 3/38 (p=1.0) respectively. One patient in the LUCAS group had a small rift in the liver and one patient in the manual group had a rift in the spleen. These injuries were not considered to have contributed to the patient's death. CONCLUSION: Mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device appear to be associated with the same variety and incidence of injuries as manual chest compressions.

Aim: The LUCASTM device has been shown to improve organ perfusion during cardiac arrest in experimental studies. In this pilot study the aim was to compare short-term survival between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed with mechanical chest compressions using the LUCASTM device and CPR performed with manual chest compressions. The intention was to use the results for power calculation in a larger randomised multicentre trial. Methods: In a prospective pilot study, from February 1, 2005, to April 1, 2007, 149 patients with out-of hospital cardiac arrest in two Swedish cities were randomised to mechanical chest compressions or standard CPR with manual chest compressions. Results: After exclusion, the LUCAS and the manual groups contained 75 and 73 patients, respectively. In the LUCAS and manual groups, spontaneous circulation with a palpable pulse returned in 30 and 23 patients (p = 0.30), spontaneous circulation with blood pressure above 80/50 mmHg remained for at least 5 min in 23 and 19 patients (p = 0.59), the number of patients hospitalised alive >4 h were 18 and 15 (p = 0.69), and the number discharged, alive 6 and 7 (p = 0.78), respectively. Conclusions: In this pilot study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients we found no difference in early survival between CPR performed with mechanical chest compression with the LUCASTM device and CPR with manual chest compressions. Data have been used for power calculation in a forthcoming multicentre trial.

AIM:

Computed tomography (CT) has been suggested as an aid or even a replacement for autopsy. The aim of this trial was to study the conformity of the two methods in finding injuries in non-surviving patients after unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

METHODS:

In this prospective study, 31 patients were submitted to a CT prior to autopsy after unsuccessful resuscitation attempts. Pathological findings were noted by both the radiologist and the pathologists in a specified protocol. The pathologists and radiologist were blinded from each other's results.

RESULTS:

CT and autopsy revealed rib fractures in 22 and 24 patients respectively (kappa=0.83). In 8 patients, CT revealed more rib fractures than autopsy; and in 12 patients, autopsy revealed more rib fractures than CT. In 7 patients, neither method showed any rib fractures. The mean difference between the two methods in detecting rib fractures was 0.16 (S.D.: ±3.174, limits of agreement: -6.19 to 6.51). The kappa value for sternal fractures was 0.49. A total of 260 pathological findings were noted by CT and 244 by autopsy. The average patient showed a median of 9 injuries (every fracture counted as one injury), independent of the method used in detecting the injuries.

CONCLUSIONS:

There was a strong concordance between the two methods in finding rib fractures but not sternal fractures and these results support the concept of CT as a valuable complement to autopsy in detecting rib fractures after unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation but not as a replacement. Other injuries did not show the same concordance.

AIM: The reported incidence of injuries due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation using manual chest compressions (manual CPR) varies greatly. Our aim was to elucidate the incidence of CPR-related injuries by manual chest compressions compared to mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device (mechanical CPR) in non-survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.METHODS: In this prospective multicentre trial, including 222 patients (83 manual CPR/139 mechanical CPR), autopsies were conducted after unsuccessful CPR and the results were evaluated according to a specified protocol.RESULTS: Among the patients included, 75.9% in the manual CPR group and 91.4% in the mechanical CPR group (p=0.002) displayed CPR-related injuries. Sternal fractures were present in 54.2% of the patients in the manual CPR group and in 58.3% in the mechanical CPR group (p=0.56). Of the patients in the manual CPR group, there were 64.6% with at least one rib fracture versus 78.8% in the mechanical CPR group (p=0.02). The median number of rib fractures among patients with rib fractures was 7 in the manual CPR group and 6 in the mechanical CPR group. No CPR-related injury was considered to be the cause of death.CONCLUSION: In patients with unsuccessful CPR after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, rib fractures were more frequent after mechanical CPR but there was no difference in the incidence of sternal fractures. No injury was deemed fatal by the pathologist.