Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41583926›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2026

Feasibility and safety of automated chest compression during helicopter rescue with hoisting.

Alexandre Carron, Vivien Brenckmann, Alexandre Behouche, Pierre Bouzat, Lilian Barlet, Juliette Meyzenc, Marc Blancher, Katell Berthelot, Guillaume Debaty, Nicolas Segond

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alexandre CarronEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Vivien BrenckmannEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Alexandre BehoucheDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Pierre BouzatDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, F-38000 Grenoble, France.
Lilian BarletEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Juliette MeyzencEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Marc BlancherEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Katell BerthelotEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Guillaume DebatyEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.
Nicolas SegondEmergency Department and Mobile Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in mountainous environments presents substantial logistical challenges, particularly in maintaining high-quality chest compressions during helicopter evacuations. Prolonged interruptions, especially during hoisting, may critically impact neurological outcomes. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a mechanical chest compression (MCC) device compared to manual compressions during a simulated helicopter hoisting scenario. Methods: This was a prospective, crossover simulation study involving complete mountain rescue teams. Each team completed two scenarios: one using an MCC device (LUCAS-3®) and one using manual chest compressions. Hoisting was performed at two heights (15 m and 30 m). The primary outcome was chest compression fraction (CCF). Secondary outcomes included, compression depth and rate, and overall safety of the procedure. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Results: CCF was significantly higher in the MCC group compared to the manual group (96.6 % ± 0.3 vs. 73.9 % ± 6.6; Conclusion: In a simulated mountain rescue setting, the use of a mechanical chest compression device during helicopter hoisting appears feasible, safe and seems to improve chest compression fraction and the rate of guideline-compliant chest compressions.

Indexed as

Basic life supportCardiac arrestChest compressionsHoistingMountain rescue

Identifiers

PMID41583926
PMCPMC12825053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.