Comparison of different mechanical chest compression devices in the alpine rescue setting: a randomized triple crossover experiment.
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · 2021-06-29 · Randomised trial
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in mountain environment is challenging. Continuous chest compressions during transport or hoist rescue are almost impossible without mechanical chest compression devices. Current evidence is predominantly based on studies conducted by urbane ambulance service. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the feasibility of continuous mechanical chest compression during alpine terrestrial transport using three different devices. METHODS: Randomized triple crossover prospective study in an alpine environment. Nineteen teams of the Austrian Mountain Rescue Service trained according to current ERC guidelines performed three runs each of a standardised alpine rescue-scenario, using three different devices for mechanical chest compression. Quality of CPR, hands-off-time and displacement of devices were measured. RESULTS: The primary outcome of performed work (defined as number of chest compressions x compression depth) was 66,062 mm (2832) with Corpuls CPR, 65,877 mm (6163) with Physio-Control LUCAS 3 and 40,177 mm (4396) with Schiller Easy Pulse. The difference both between LUCAS 3 and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,700; 95% confidence interval 21,118 - 30,282) and between Corpuls CPR and Easy Pulse (Δ 25,885; 23,590 - 28,181) was significant. No relevant differences were found regarding secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Mechanical chest compression devices provide a viable option in the alpine setting. For two out of three devices (Corpuls CPR and LUCAS 3) we found adequate quality of CPR. Those devices also maintained a correct placement of the piston even during challenging terrestrial transport. Adequate hands-off-times and correct placement could be achieved even by less trained personnel.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Mechanical CPR · Fire service & police · Rural & remote
Related articles
- Manual vs Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest on a Ski Slope: A Pilot Study. (Wilderness Environ Med, 2023)
- Feasibility and safety of automated chest compression during helicopter rescue with hoisting. (Resusc Plus, 2026)
- Manual versus Mechanical Delivery of High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on a River-Based Fire Rescue Boat. (Prehosp Disaster Med, 2022)
- Mountain rescue cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a comparison between manual and mechanical chest compressions during manikin cardio resuscitation. (Emerg Med J, 2017)
- Benefit of mechanical chest compression devices in mountain HEMS: lessons learned from 1 year of experience and evaluation. (Air Med J, 2014)
- Quantitative effects of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices in rural American emergency medical services: a retrospective cohort study. (Int J Emerg Med, 2025)