{"title":"Mechanical chest compression increases intrathoracic hemorrhage complications in patients receiving extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation","authors":"Yoshihisa Matsushima , Tatsuhiro Shibata , Kodai Shibao , Rei Yamakawa , Miyu Hayashida , Toshiyuki Yanai , Takashi Ishimatsu , Takehiro Homma , Shoichiro Nohara , Maki Otsuka , Yoshihiro Fukumoto","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices address the limitations of manual CPR, but their impact on intrathoracic injuries during extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) remains unclear. This study investigated the relationship between mechanical CPR and severe intrathoracic hemorrhage during ECPR compared to manual CPR.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent ECPR from April 2017 to March 2024 according to a standard institutional protocol. Patients were divided into a mechanical CPR group (piston-driven compressions before veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO]) and a manual CPR group. The primary outcome was intrathoracic hemorrhage requiring transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). Secondary outcomes included other intrathoracic injuries and 180-day survival.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 91 patients were enrolled (mechanical <em>n</em> = 48, manual <em>n</em> = 43). Intrathoracic hemorrhage requiring TAE occurred more frequently in the mechanical CPR group (18.8% vs. 2.3%, <em>p</em> = 0.030). On multivariate analysis, mechanical CPR was independently associated with this outcome (adjusted odds ratio 6.29; 95% confidence interval 1.20–65.10). In the mechanical group, older age and larger thoracic transverse diameter were significantly related to intrathoracic hemorrhage requiring TAE. Mediastinal hematoma (18.8% vs. 2.3%, <em>p</em> = 0.030) and hemothorax (20.8% vs. 4.7%, <em>p</em> = 0.049) were also more frequent in the mechanical group. The 180-day survival rates did not differ significantly between groups (27.7% vs. 25.0%, log-rank <em>p</em> = 0.540).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Mechanical CPR during ECPR is associated with an increased risk of severe intrathoracic hemorrhage. While mechanical CPR devices may provide benefits in certain scenarios, clinicians should carefully consider individual patient characteristics and closely monitor for complications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100892"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425000293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices address the limitations of manual CPR, but their impact on intrathoracic injuries during extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) remains unclear. This study investigated the relationship between mechanical CPR and severe intrathoracic hemorrhage during ECPR compared to manual CPR.
Methods
We conducted a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent ECPR from April 2017 to March 2024 according to a standard institutional protocol. Patients were divided into a mechanical CPR group (piston-driven compressions before veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO]) and a manual CPR group. The primary outcome was intrathoracic hemorrhage requiring transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). Secondary outcomes included other intrathoracic injuries and 180-day survival.
Results
A total of 91 patients were enrolled (mechanical n = 48, manual n = 43). Intrathoracic hemorrhage requiring TAE occurred more frequently in the mechanical CPR group (18.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.030). On multivariate analysis, mechanical CPR was independently associated with this outcome (adjusted odds ratio 6.29; 95% confidence interval 1.20–65.10). In the mechanical group, older age and larger thoracic transverse diameter were significantly related to intrathoracic hemorrhage requiring TAE. Mediastinal hematoma (18.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.030) and hemothorax (20.8% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.049) were also more frequent in the mechanical group. The 180-day survival rates did not differ significantly between groups (27.7% vs. 25.0%, log-rank p = 0.540).
Conclusions
Mechanical CPR during ECPR is associated with an increased risk of severe intrathoracic hemorrhage. While mechanical CPR devices may provide benefits in certain scenarios, clinicians should carefully consider individual patient characteristics and closely monitor for complications.
机械心肺复苏(CPR)装置解决了人工心肺复苏的局限性,但其对体外心肺复苏(ECPR)过程中胸内损伤的影响尚不清楚。本研究探讨了机械心肺复苏术与手工心肺复苏术中严重胸内出血的关系。方法对2017年4月至2024年3月期间连续接受ECPR的患者进行单中心回顾性研究。将患者分为机械CPR组(静脉-动脉体外膜氧合前活塞驱动按压[VA-ECMO])和手动CPR组。主要结果是胸内出血需要经导管动脉栓塞(TAE)。次要结局包括其他胸内损伤和180天生存率。结果共纳入91例患者(机械48例,手工43例)。机械心肺复苏组胸内出血需要TAE的发生率更高(18.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.030)。在多变量分析中,机械CPR与该结果独立相关(校正优势比6.29;95%置信区间1.20-65.10)。在机械组中,年龄较大和胸椎横径较大与胸内出血需要TAE显著相关。纵隔血肿(18.8% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.030)和血胸(20.8% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.049)在机械组也更常见。180天生存率组间无显著差异(27.7% vs. 25.0%, log-rank p = 0.540)。结论ECPR期间机械CPR与严重胸内出血风险增加相关。虽然机械心肺复苏装置在某些情况下可能会带来好处,但临床医生应仔细考虑患者的个体特征,并密切监测并发症。