The research for the utilization of mechanical chest compression device for emergency medical center in Korea: a survey-based study

¹Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
²Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
³Nursing Department, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence

Gil Joon Suh ,Tel: 02-2072-2196, Fax: 02-3672-8871, Email: suhgil@snu.ac.kr,

Received: August 7, 2023; Revised: September 22, 2023 Accepted: October 11, 2023. Published online: December 31, 2023.

ABSTRACT

Objective:
During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the use of mechanical chest compression (meCC) devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in emergency departments might have increased. However, there are few reports yet of such an increase in use. This study aimed to assess the current status of meCC device utilization in emergency medical institutions nationwide through a survey.
Method:
This cross-sectional study conducted a survey from August 20, 2022 to September 29, 2022, using emails and text messages to target 287 out of a total of 409 emergency medical institutions nationwide for which contact information was obtained.
Results:
Of the 287 emergency medical institutions, 127 responded (44.2% response rate). Of these, 74 (58.3%) reported using meCC devices. The utilization rates were highest in the regional emergency medical center, followed by local emergency medical centers and local emergency medical agencies (93.3% vs. 67.3% vs. 27.1%, respectively; P<0.001). The most common reason for device purchases was to reduce rescuer fatigue and ensure high-quality CPR. The second reason was personnel shortages, while the regional emergency medical center gave a higher priority to the protection of medical staff from COVID-19. The meCC device group reported significantly higher cases of CPR (100 or more cases per year) compared to the non-meCC device group (64.9% vs. 24.6%; P<0.001) although no difference was shown in the total number of medical staff participated in CPR between the groups. Also, 90.5% of the meCC group expressed satisfaction with using the device.
Conclusion:
More than 50% of emergency medical institutions used meCC devices in CPR, citing reasons such as reducing rescuer fatigue and ensuring high-quality CPR.

Key words: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Advanced Cardiac Life Support; Emergency medical services