How much mechanical chest compression device can reduce rescuer’s exposure in cardiac arrests patients during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in COVID-19 pandemic period

Park, Jinhyuk; Lee, Sung; Kim, Sin Young; Kim, Jong Won; Hong, Dae Young; Lee, Kyeong Ryong; Baek, Kwang Je; Park, Sang O

J Korean Soc Emerg Med > Volume 33(2); 2022 > Article

Original Article

Journal of The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2022;33(2): 149-155.

코로나 대유행 시대에 기계적 심폐소생술 장치의 사용이 의료진에 대한 환자 접촉을 얼마나 최소화 할 수 있는가?

박진혁

건국대학교 의과대학 응급의학교실

How much mechanical chest compression device can reduce rescuer’s exposure in cardiac arrests patients during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in COVID-19 pandemic period

Department of Emergency Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence

Sang O Park ,Tel: 02-2030-5551, Fax: 02-2030-5780, Email: empso@kuh.ac.kr,

Received: July 5, 2021; Revised: September 6, 2021 Accepted: September 28, 2021. Published online: April 30, 2022.

ABSTRACT

Objective:
In the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, virus transmission via exposal to arrest victims infected can be a huge risk to rescuers during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We hypothesized that using a mechanical chest compression device can reduce the rescuer’s exposure to cardiac arrest patients during CPR.
Method:
This is a retrospective clinical study that compared CPRs using a mechanical chest compression device (mCPR) with CPRs with manual chest compression (c-CPR). All CPR data were obtained by analyzing recorded video clips and the medical charts. The primary outcome was the number of rescuers who participated in CPR. In addition, the length of time rescuers’ staying around the arrested victim and some procedure time were evaluated.
Results:
There was no significant difference in baseline data of CPR between the m-CPR (n=28) and c-CPR (n=25) groups. The m-CPR group showed a significantly reduced mean number of rescuers (4.4±0.5 vs. 5.5±0.5) and mean total time of rescuer’s staying (2,609.9±315.4 seconds vs. 3,286.0±329.9 seconds) comparing with the c-CPR group (P<0.05). The m-CPR group showed a delay in the first rhythm analysis compared with the c-CPR group (40.0 seconds [30.0-57.5] vs. 27.0 seconds [25.0-43.5])
Conclusion:
The usage of a mechanical compression device can reduce the number of rescuers and the length of time staying around the victim. However, a delay in rhythm analysis can occur in the m-CPR group.

Key words: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Mechanical chest compression device; Manual chest compressions; Emergency department