Manual versus automatic chest compression devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation under zero gravity (The MACCC - 0G STUDY)

Reynette, N; Sagnières, L; Pequignot, B; Levy, B; Zuily, S; Chenuel, B; Birnbaum, R; Sandoz, B; Lescroart, M

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110385

Acute cardiac care & resuscitation

Manual versus automatic chest compression devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation under zero gravity (The MACCC - 0G STUDY)

ResuscitationPublished 4 Sep 2024Prospective controlled study

Read the original article ↗PubMed

Cite

Authors' conclusion

Only LUCAS 3© provided effective CPR according to international guidelines.

Study context

Population: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on a Laerdal© Resusci-Ann-QCPR manikin in microgravity simulated through parabolic flights

Exposure: Automatic chest compression devices vs manual CPR
Outcome: Chest compression depth and rate

Methodological detailsopen, parabolic flights (simulated microgravity), manikin, 66th CNES parabolic flights campaign, Novespace Air Zero-G A310 aircraft

Open
Parabolic flights (simulated microgravity)
Manikin
66th CNES parabolic flights campaign, Novespace Air Zero-G A310 aircraft

Main finding

As reported in the abstract

Compression depth

LUCAS 3©53.0median · IQR 53.0–54.0 · mm

EASYPULSE©29.0median · IQR 26.0–32.0 · mm

AUTOPULSE©29.0median · IQR 27.5–30.7 · mm

Manual CPR34.5median · IQR 29.6–43.3 · mm

P < 0.001

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Further findings

Compression rate — Manual CPR vs ACCDs · significantly higher with manual CPR

P < 0.001

Manual CPR115 cpmIQR 109–123

Original publication

Manual versus automatic chest compression devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation under zero gravity (The MACCC - 0G STUDY). Resuscitation. Published 4 September 2024. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110385

Read the original article ↗

Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →