There have been several studies published in the ongoing debate over the effectiveness of mechanical (automated) CPR compared to manual CPR. While some suggest mechanical CPR can lead to improved patient survival rates, others indicate that there is no clinical evidence to suggest mechanical CPR devices can improve survival over manual ones. Despite this controversy, the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines support the use of mechanical piston devices by properly trained personnel in specific settings for the treatment of patients in circumstances that make manual resuscitation difficult (e.g., cath labs).
Cath labs in particular benefit from mechanical CPR since, unlike with manual CPR, the cath lab procedure does not need to be interrupted to assist the patient. Mechanical CPR’s ability to provide a consistent rate and depth of compression in a space-limited environment makes it particularly attractive for cath lab use.
Mechanical CPR devices use either pneumatic (piston) or electrical power sources to facilitate compression. Pneumatic devices offer 100 compressions per minute and electrical powered devices can offer 80. The LUCAS 2’s clinical efficacy is backed by several studies that show improved coronary perfusion pressure and higher cerebral blood flow and cardiac output. While the electrically powered AutoPulse initially seemed to improve patient outcome when compared with manual CPR, later a randomized study found that the AutoPulse resulted in worsening neurological outcomes and a trend toward worse survival. Weil MiniChest’s clinical efficacy is still in its infancy but early results discussed at the AHA Conference seem promising.
Below is a breakdown of the different types of CPR/cath lab computable devices that MD Buyline currently tracks along with their expected price ranges: