Manual vs Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest on a Ski Slope: A Pilot Study

• Published in: Wilderness & environmental medicine 2023-09, Vol.34 (3), p.289-294
• Main Authors: Rupp, Scott L., Overberger, Ryan C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: austere; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Emergency Responders; Humans; Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System; mannequin; out of hospital cardiac arrest; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest - therapy; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies; ski
• ISSN: 1080-6032; 1545-1534
• DOI: 10.1016/j.wem.2023.03.006

The quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical in increasing the probability of survival with a good neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In an austere environment with a potentially salvageable patient, bystanders or first responders may need to provide chest compressions for a prolonged duration or during physically challenging transportation scenarios. Consequently, they may be at risk of fatigue or injury, and chest compression quality may deteriorate. The study sought to assess whether or not access to and utilization of a mechanical compression device (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System) was feasible and not inferior to manual compressions while extricating and transporting a patient from a ski slope. Variable 3-person ski patrol teams responded to a simulated patient with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a nonshockable rhythm. Using a mannequin and CPR quality monitor, performance during manual CPR was compared with that of a mechanical compression device. This is a prospective, crossover analysis of CPR quality during extrication from a ski slope. Across 8 total runs, chest compression fraction, which is the proportion of time without spontaneous circulation during which compressions occurred, and high-quality CPR, as measured by appropriate rate and depth, were compared between the 2 groups. Extrication times between the 2 groups were also measured. There was no difference in compression fraction between the manual (91.4%; 95% CI [86.8–96.1]) and mechanical arms (92.8%; 95% CI [88.8–96.8]) (P=0.67). There was an increase in the time performing high-quality CPR in the mechanical group (58.5%; 95% CI [45.8–71.2]) vs that in the manual group (25.6%; 95% CI [13.5–37.8]) (P