Content area
Full text
Received Sep 15, 2017; Revised Oct 25, 2017; Accepted Nov 23, 2017
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Introduction
Chest compressions are crucial for maintaining coronary and cerebral perfusion during cardiac arrest. The efficiency of manual chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decreases over time [1, 2], and it is difficult to perform efficient chest compressions during transportation or during interventional procedures, for example, in a catheter lab.
In order to address these problems, a variety of devices that perform mechanical chest compressions have been developed and tested in animal experiments, experimental investigations using manikins, and clinical studies [3–7].
The 2015 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines for CPR recommend mechanical chest compression devices as a reasonable alternative in situations where delivery of high performance chest compressions is impeded or would compromise provider safety [8].
These devices should offer maximal flexibility for adaptation to the individual constitution of the patient, as well as adequate battery capacity, low weight, and mechanical stability that allows compressions of sufficient depth even at high chest stiffness values. The LUCAS II device is currently one of the most widely used chest compression machines in clinical practice. This device has a closed frame that surrounds the patient to provide a maximum of stability.
Corpuls CPR (GS Elektromedizinische Geräte G. Stemple GmbH, Kaufering, Germany) is a newly introduced electric device for chest compressions. Compression is generated by a single, flexible, adaptable arm that...