Evaluation of three mechanical chest compression devices: a simulation-based mannequin study

Introduction: High-quality chest compressions are essential when treating out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients but they may be compromised due to rescuer fatigue. Therefore, mechanical chest compression devices (MCCDs) are used, but the choice of device is a matter of debate. This study aimed to compare the quality of chest compressions along with usability of three commercially available devices. Methods: The study was prospectively designed and tested LUCAS 3, AutoPulse and Corpuls CPR on the AmbuMan Advanced simulation mannequin in four different scenarios, including mounting of device, patient transport via stairs and ambulance and re-packing. The quality of chest compressions was evaluated according to current guidelines, movement of the device and usability, through a predefined questionnaire. Results: In total, 45 paramedics and 40 pre-hospital clinicians were invited to participate in the study; nine paramedics took part. A significant difference in time regarding patient transport via stairs and re-packing was observed between the tested devices. Significant differences in ratings of MCCDs regarding unpacking, mounting and the start of mechanical chest compressions, as well as overall usability of and satisfaction with the devices, were observed. LUCAS 3 and Corpuls CPR had significantly higher mean proportions of compressions within the European Resuscitation Council’s recommendations as compared to AutoPulse (post-hoc analysis). Most participants recommended Corpuls CPR for future use. Conclusion: In this simulation study of OHCA attended by paramedics using mechanical chest compressions on a mannequin, the LUCAS 3 and Corpuls CPR systems were overall superior to the AutoPulse system regarding quality of chest compressions during cardiac arrest as compared to current guidelines and usability. No ultimate distinction between LUCAS 3 and Corpuls CPR could be made.