Department of Anesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Section Emergency Medicine, Armed Forces Medical Centre Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Emerg Med J. 2013 Jul;30(7):589-92. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201142. Epub 2012 Jul 25.
In special circumstances it may be necessary to transport out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with ongoing resuscitation to the hospital. External mechanical chest compression devices could be an alternative for these resuscitations. The study compares manual chest compression with external mechanical devices and a semiautomatic device in transport conditions using a resuscitation manikin.
Manual chest compressions were compared with LUCAS 2, AutoPulse and animax mono devices using the Ambu Man Wireless MegaCode manikin (10 series each). The measurements were performed in a standard ambulance vehicle during transport on a predefined track of 5.0 km.
Mean compression frequencies in the manual group (117 ± 18 min(-1)) and in the animax mono group (115 ± 10 min(-1)) were significantly higher than in the LUCAS 2 group (100 min(-1), p=0.02) and the AutoPulse group (80 min(-1), p<0.01). Both mechanical devices worked absolutely constantly. Only the animax mono group reached with 51.2 mm the recommended compression depth. The quality of manual compressions decreased considerably during braking or change manoeuvres while the mechanical devices continued to work constantly.
During a patient transport with ongoing resuscitation, external mechanical compression devices may be a good alternative to manual compression because they increase the safety of the rescuer and patient. Yet, in this study only animax mono reached the guideline specifications regarding chest compressions' frequency and depth. Concerning constancy, the mechanical devices work reliably and more independently from motion influences. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices in patient transport.
在特殊情况下，可能需要将正在进行复苏的院外心脏骤停患者转运到医院。外部机械胸部按压设备可能是这些复苏的替代方法。本研究使用复苏模型比较了手动胸部按压与外部机械设备和半自动设备在转运条件下的效果。
使用 Ambu Man Wireless MegaCode 模型（每个模型 10 个系列）比较了手动胸部按压与 LUCAS 2、AutoPulse 和 animax mono 设备。在标准救护车中，在预先设定的 5.0 公里轨道上进行转运时进行了测量。
手动组（117±18 次/分钟）和 animax mono 组（115±10 次/分钟）的平均按压频率明显高于 LUCAS 2 组（100 次/分钟，p=0.02）和 AutoPulse 组（80 次/分钟，p<0.01）。两种机械设备均能持续稳定地工作。只有 animax mono 组达到了推荐的 51.2 毫米的按压深度。在制动或改变操作期间，手动按压的质量显著下降，而机械设备仍能持续稳定地工作。
在进行持续复苏的患者转运过程中，外部机械压缩设备可能是手动压缩的良好替代方法，因为它们提高了救援人员和患者的安全性。然而，在本研究中，只有 animax mono 组在胸部按压频率和深度方面达到了指南的规格要求。就一致性而言，机械设备可靠地工作，并且更不受运动影响的影响。需要进一步的研究来评估这些设备在患者转运中的效果。
