ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2021
Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and evaluation of a mechanical chest compression device for standardized rodent cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ultra-low tidal volume ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation shows no mitigating effect on pulmonary end-organ damage compared to standard ventilation: insights from a porcine model.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023Article
- Left rib fractures during cardiopulmonary resuscitation are associated with hemodynamic variations in a pig model of cardiac arrest.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- The Influence of Ultra-Low Tidal Volume Ventilation during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Renal and Hepatic End-Organ Damage in a Porcine Model.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Article
- Manual and Mechanical Induced Peri-Resuscitation Injuries-Post-Mortem and Clinical Findings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMechanical chest compression devices are accepted alternatives for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) under specific circumstances. Current devices lack prospective and comparative data on their specific cardiovascular effects and potential for severe thoracic injuries.
objectivesTo compare CPR effectiveness and thoracic injuries of two mechanical chest compression devices in pigs. STUDY
designProspective randomised trial. ANIMALS: Eighteen male German landrace pigs.
methodsVentricular fibrillation was induced in anaesthetised and instrumented pigs and the animals were randomised into two intervention groups. Mechanical CPR was initiated by means of LUCAS™ 2 (mCCD1) or Corpuls™ cpr (mCCD2) device. Advanced life support was applied for a maximum of 10 cycles and animals achieving ROSC were monitored for 8 h. Ventilation/perfusion measurements were performed and blood gas analyses were taken. Thoracic injuries were assessed via a standardised damage score.
resultsFive animals of the mCCD1 group and one animal of the mCCD2 group achieved ROSC (p = 0.048). Only the mCCD1 animals survived until the end of the monitoring period (p < 0.01). MCCD1 animals showed less pulmonary shunt (p = 0.025) and higher normal V/Q (p = 0.017) during CPR. MCCD2 animals showed significantly more severe thoracic injuries (p = 0.046).
conclusionThe LUCAS 2 device shows superior resuscitation outcomes and less thoracic injuries compared to Corpuls cpr when used for experimental CPR in juvenile pigs. Researchers should be aware that different mCCDs for experimental studies may significantly influence the respective outcome of resuscitation studies and affect comparability of different trials. Controlled human and animal CPR studies and a standardised post-resuscitation injury evaluation could help to confirm potential hazards.
trial registrationTrial approval number: G16-1-042-E4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.