Mechanical chest compression devices in the helicopter emergency medical service in Switzerland.
AutoPulse
Cardiopulmonary arrest
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Helicopter emergency medical services
Load-distributing band CPR device
Mechanical chest compression devices
Journal
Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
ISSN: 1757-7241
Titre abrégé: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101477511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jul 2020
25 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
14
05
2020
accepted:
24
06
2020
entrez:
27
7
2020
pubmed:
28
7
2020
medline:
26
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Over the past years, several emergency medical service providers have introduced mechanical chest compression devices (MCDs) in their protocols for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Especially in helicopter emergency medical systems (HEMS), which have limitations regarding loading weight and space and typically operate in rural and remote areas, whether MCDs have benefits for patients is still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of MCDs in a large Swiss HEMS system. We conducted a retrospective observational study of all HEMS missions of Swiss Air rescue Rega between January 2014 and June 2016 with the use of an MCD (Autopulse®). Details of MCD use and patient outcome are reported from the medical operation journals and the hospitals' discharge letters. MCDs were used in 626 HEMS missions, and 590 patients (94%) could be included. 478 (81%) were primary missions and 112 (19%) were interhospital transfers. Forty-nine of the patients in primary missions were loaded under ongoing CPR with MCDs. Of the patients loaded after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 20 (7%) experienced a second CA during the flight. In interhospital transfers, 102 (91%) only needed standby use of the MCD. Five (5%) patients were loaded into the helicopter with ongoing CPR. Five (5%) patients went into CA during flight and the MCD had to be activated. A shockable cardiac arrhythmia was the only factor significantly associated with better survival in resuscitation missions using MCD (OR 0.176, 95% confidence interval 0.084 to 0.372, p < 0.001). We conclude that equipping HEMS with MCDs may be beneficial, with non-trauma patients potentially benefitting more than trauma patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Over the past years, several emergency medical service providers have introduced mechanical chest compression devices (MCDs) in their protocols for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Especially in helicopter emergency medical systems (HEMS), which have limitations regarding loading weight and space and typically operate in rural and remote areas, whether MCDs have benefits for patients is still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of MCDs in a large Swiss HEMS system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective observational study of all HEMS missions of Swiss Air rescue Rega between January 2014 and June 2016 with the use of an MCD (Autopulse®). Details of MCD use and patient outcome are reported from the medical operation journals and the hospitals' discharge letters.
RESULTS
RESULTS
MCDs were used in 626 HEMS missions, and 590 patients (94%) could be included. 478 (81%) were primary missions and 112 (19%) were interhospital transfers. Forty-nine of the patients in primary missions were loaded under ongoing CPR with MCDs. Of the patients loaded after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 20 (7%) experienced a second CA during the flight. In interhospital transfers, 102 (91%) only needed standby use of the MCD. Five (5%) patients were loaded into the helicopter with ongoing CPR. Five (5%) patients went into CA during flight and the MCD had to be activated. A shockable cardiac arrhythmia was the only factor significantly associated with better survival in resuscitation missions using MCD (OR 0.176, 95% confidence interval 0.084 to 0.372, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that equipping HEMS with MCDs may be beneficial, with non-trauma patients potentially benefitting more than trauma patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32711548
doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00758-1
pii: 10.1186/s13049-020-00758-1
pmc: PMC7381862
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71Références
Resuscitation. 2011 Mar;82(3):294-9
pubmed: 21196070
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Nov;88(5):691-696
pubmed: 27315227
JAMA. 2014 Jan 1;311(1):53-61
pubmed: 24240611
Air Med J. 2014 Nov-Dec;33(6):299-301
pubmed: 25441525
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Jan 07;21:1
pubmed: 23294807
Resuscitation. 2007 May;73(2):264-70
pubmed: 17276575
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2016 Jun;22(3):225-9
pubmed: 27054624
Resuscitation. 2018 Sep;130:21-27
pubmed: 29958956
Resuscitation. 2017 Nov;120:95-102
pubmed: 28888812
JAMA. 2006 Jun 14;295(22):2620-8
pubmed: 16772625
Resuscitation. 2019 Nov;144:157-165
pubmed: 31401135
Resuscitation. 2019 Aug;141:35-43
pubmed: 31185258
Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr;43(4):840-8
pubmed: 25565457
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Apr 28;26(1):36
pubmed: 29704898
Wilderness Environ Med. 2014 Jun;25(2):190-3
pubmed: 24556043
Resuscitation. 2003 Jul;58(1):113-6
pubmed: 12867317
Resuscitation. 2018 Dec;133:e3-e4
pubmed: 30244046
Anaesthesist. 2018 May;67(5):343-350
pubmed: 29666925
Resuscitation. 2005 Oct;67(1):139-41
pubmed: 16129539
Resuscitation. 2014 Feb;85(2):182-8
pubmed: 24125742
Minerva Anestesiol. 2016 Apr;82(4):429-37
pubmed: 26576860
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):349-360.e3
pubmed: 26607332
Resuscitation. 2016 Aug;105:e23
pubmed: 27255955
Clin Med Cardiol. 2009 Feb 09;3:9-14
pubmed: 20508762
Lancet. 2015 Mar 14;385(9972):947-55
pubmed: 25467566
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:81-99
pubmed: 26477420
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 20;8:CD007260
pubmed: 30125048
Resuscitation. 2013 Aug;84(8):1045-50
pubmed: 23353137