背景:微重力下的心肺复苏(CPR)需要特定的方法来抵消失重。自动胸部按压装置(ACCD)可以改善微重力下的CPR。我们旨在比较通过抛物线飞行模拟的微重力中的ACCD与手动CPR。
方法:这种前瞻性,打开,对照研究比较了3种ACCD(LUCAS3©,AUTOPULSE©,EASYPULSE©)在NovespaceAirZero-GA310飞机上的第66次CNES(国家研究空间中心)抛物线飞行活动中进行手动CPR。通过Laerdal©Resusci-Ann-QCPR人体模型监测胸部按压深度和速率。
结果:LUCAS3©装置的中位压缩深度为53.0[53.0-54.0]mm,显著高于EASYPULSE©,AUTOPULSE©,和手动CPR(倒立方法),在29.0[26.0-32.0]mm处测量,29.0[27.5-30.7]mm和34.5[29.6-43.3]mm,分别(p值<0.001)。压缩率为101[101-101],LUCAS3©每分钟100[100-100]和80[80-80]次按压(cpm),EASYPULSE©,和AUTOPULSE©,分别。手动心肺复苏提供了显著更高的压缩率,115[109-123]cpm(p值<0.001)。
结论:根据国际指南,只有LUCAS3©提供了有效的CPR。ACCD应实施微重力CPR算法。
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in
microgravity requires specific methods to counteract weightlessness. Automatic chest compression devices (ACCDs) could improve CPR in
microgravity. We aimed to compare ACCDs versus manual CPR in
microgravity simulated through parabolic flights.
METHODS: This prospective, open, controlled
study compared 3 ACCDs (LUCAS 3©, AUTOPULSE©, EASYPULSE©) to manual CPR during the 66th CNES (Centre National d\'Etudes Spatiales) parabolic flights campaign onboard the Novespace Air Zero-G A310 aircraft. Chest compression depths and rates were monitored by a Laerdal© Resusci-Ann-QCPR manikin.
RESULTS: The LUCAS 3© device had a median compression depth of 53.0 [53.0 - 54.0] mm, significantly higher than the EASYPULSE©, AUTOPULSE©, and Manual CPR (Handstand method), measured at 29.0 [26.0 - 32.0] mm, 29.0 [27.5 - 30.7] mm and 34.5 [29.6 - 43.3] mm, respectively (p value <0.001). Compression rates were 101 [101 - 101], 100 [100 - 100] and 80 [80 - 80] compressions per minute (cpm) for the LUCAS 3©, EASYPULSE©, and AUTOPULSE©, respectively. Manual CPR provided a significantly higher compression rate with 115 [109 - 123] cpm (p value <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Only LUCAS 3© provided effective CPR according to international guidelines. ACCDs should implement
microgravity CPR algorithms.