Chest compression-associated injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions versus automated chest compression devices (LUCAS II) – a forensic autopsy-based comparison
The aim of this autopsy study was to investigate chest-compression associated injuries to the trunk in out-of-hospital and in-hospital non-traumatic cardiac arrest patients treated with automated external chest compression devices (ACCD; all with LUCAS II devices) versus exclusive manual chest compressions (mCC). In this retrospective single-center study, all forensic autopsies between 2011 and 2017 were included. Injuries following cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients treated with mCC or ACCD were investigated and statistically compared using a bivariate logistic regression. In the seven-year period with 4433 autopsies, 614 were analyzed following CPR (mCC vs. ACCD: n = 501 vs. n = 113). The presence of any type of trunk injury was correlated with longer resuscitation intervals (30 ± 15 vs. 44 ± 25 min, p < 0.05). In comparison with mCC, treatment with ACCD led to more frequent skin emphysema (5 vs 0%, p = 0.012), pneumothorax (6 vs. 1%, p = 0.008), lung lesions (19 vs. 4%, p = 0.008), hemopericardium (3 vs 1%, p = 0.025) and liver lesions (10 vs. 1%, p = 0.001), all irrespective of confounding aspects. Higher age and longer CPR durations statistically influenced frequency of sternal and rib fractures (p < 0.001). The mean number of fractured ribs did not vary significantly between the groups (6 ± 3 vs. 7 ± 2, p = 0.09). In this cohort with unsuccessful CPR, chest compression-related injuries were more frequent following ACCD application than in the mCC group, but with only minutely increased odds ratios. The severity of injuries did not differ between the groups, and no iatrogenic injury was declared by the forensic pathologist as being fatal. In the clinical routine after successful return of spontaneous circulation a computed tomography scan for CPR-associated injuries is recommended as soon as possible.
KeywordsAutomated chest compression devices Cardiopulmonary resuscitation Forensic autopsy Injury frequency Manual chest compression Rib fractures
The authors would like to thank Miss Lina Woydt for providing the anatomic sketch and Miss Aqeeda Singh for proofreading the paper as a native speaker.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Leipzig, Germany (code: 104/17-ek).
Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.
- 3.Perkins GD, Jacobs IG, Nadkarni VM, Berg RA, Bhanji F, Bossaert LL, et al. Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update of the Utstein Resuscitation Registry Templates for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: a statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (American Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council, Australian and New Zealand Council on Resuscitation, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, InterAmerican Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa, Resuscitation Council of Asia); and the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation. Circulation. 2015;132:1286–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Gates S, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, et al. Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Buckler DG, Burke RV, Naim MY, MacPherson A, Bradley RN, Abella BS, et al. Association of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation device use with cardiac arrest outcomes: a population-based study using the CARES registry (Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival). Circulation. 2016;134:2131–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.German Society of Legal Medicine. S1 guideline ‘Forensic autopsy’. 2017. http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/054-001l_S1_Die-rechtsmedizinische_Leichenoeffnung_2018-02.pdf. Accessed 09 July 2018.
- 26.Yamaguchi R, Makino Y, Chiba F, Torimitsu S, Yajima D, Inokuchi G, et al. Frequency and influencing factors of cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related injuries during implementation of the American Heart Association 2010 Guidelines: a retrospective study based on autopsy and postmortem computed tomography. Int J Legal Med. 2017;131:1655–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Rößler L, Dümpelmann D, Tsokos M. “Simon’s bleedings“ without a hanging situation. Rechtsmedizin. 2018;28:298–300.Google Scholar
- 30.Rubertsson S, Smekal D, Huzevka T, Johansson J. Mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device does not increase the incidence of injuries in cardiac arrest victims. Circulation. 2007;116:II_930.Google Scholar
- 41.Tranberg T, Lassen JF, Kaltoft AK, Hansen TM, Stengaard C, Knudsen L, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resusciation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest before and after introduction of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS-2; a prospective, observational study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2015;23:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar