| Title |
Mechanical chest compression: an alternative in helicopter emergency medical services?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Internal and Emergency Medicine, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11739-015-1238-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Holger Gässler, Simone Kümmerle, Marc-Michael Ventzke, Lorenz Lampl, Matthias Helm |
| Abstract |
Mechanical chest compression devices are mentioned in the current guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) as an alternative in long-lasting cardiopulmonary resuscitations (CPR) or during transport with ongoing CPR. We compared manual chest compression with mechanical devices in a rescue-helicopter-based scenario using a resuscitation manikin. Manual chest compression was compared with the mechanical devices LUCAS™ 2, AutoPulse™ and animax mono (10 series each) using the resuscitation manikin AmbuMan MegaCode Wireless, which was intubated endotracheally and controlled ventilated during the entire scenario. The scenario comprised the installation of each device, transport and loading phases, as well as a 10-min phase inside the helicopter (type BK 117). We investigated practicability as well as measured compression quality. All mechanical devices could be used readily in a BK 117 helicopter. The LUCAS 2 group was the only one that fulfilled all recommendations of the ERC (frequency 102 ± 0.1 min(-1), compression depth 54 ± 3 mm, hands-off time 2.5 ± 1.6 %). Performing adequate manual chest compression was barely possible (fraction of correct compressions 21 ± 15 %). In all four groups, the total hands-off time was <10 %. Performing manual chest compressions during rescue-helicopter transport is barely possible, and only of poor quality. If rescuers are experienced, mechanical chest compression devices could be good alternatives in this situation. We found that the LUCAS 2 system complied with all recommendations of ERC guidelines, and all three tested devices worked consistently during the entire scenario. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Librarian | 3 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,239,109
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#207
of 958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,529
of 265,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.