Ohio medics to try out new Swedish CPR device

The last Swedish device I bought didn't work out too well. But we won't go there!!! ;-D
 
Michael Sykes said:
What would you consider to be a unworkable victim of an unwitnessed arrest? At what point do we give up?
Click to expand...

After several rounds of on scene ACLS medications with good CPR in a patient that is in a non-profusion, non-defibrallatable rhythm without special factors (such as hypothermia). Essentially, the same criteria that hospitals use to call codes.
 
wyoskibum said:
The last Swedish device I bought didn't work out too well. But we won't go there!!! ;-D
Click to expand...

haha was it a Volvo? cant probably even called it a device :P

Lucas and Autopulse.. if it was such of genuis product and everything, why dont everybody have it? because its more simple to use your hands?
like everything in our work, keep it simple as possible :)
 
wyoskibum said:
The last Swedish device I bought didn't work out too well. But we won't go there!!! ;-D
Click to expand...


Austin Powers didn't seem to have any complaints about his. :P
 
Michael Sykes said:
I was taught, as a First Responder, that they aren't dead until they're cold and dead, or when rigor starts. There's always that slim chance of survival; otherwise, we might as well throw our AED's in the dumpster. Now, obviously, if we arrive on the scene of an arrest, and the person's as stiff as our backboard, we're better off calling for the coroner.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes, you have been lied to. There is a lot of research on the subject of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. If you don't currently have specific protocols on who should have resuscitative efforts and who does not, you really should.

The A/TCEMS protocol on Determination of Death (scroll down) is definitely cut and dry and backed by a ton of research on the subject.

We are also currently using the LUCAS device on a limited basis and it is definitely well-liked by providers. A limited amount of AFD engines use the device as a trial currently, but I hope that the device is put on every engine.

Eric
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BEorP said:
Sure, and more importantly if you are transporting a patient in cardiac arrest it means that no one needs to be standing up in the back doing CPR. But then we should really be raising the question of why we are transporting cardiac arrest patients...
Click to expand...
For PCI?
 
Michael Sykes said:
What would you consider to be a unworkable victim of an unwitnessed arrest? At what point do we give up?
Click to expand...

Someone with obvious signs of death. In my area if you initiate CPR at the BLS level you continue it to the hospital.

If someone meets the criteria in which CPR is not initiated, we notify the medical examiner and wait for PD to release us.
 
BEorP said:
The fact remains though that mechanical CPR devices have not been proven to improve outcomes.
Click to expand...

The fact also remains that epinepherine, vasopressin, amiodarone, atropine and intubation also have no proven benefits in improving outcome from cardiac arrest. However, I don't see anyone complaining that we are using unproven treatments on patients when we push epi or any other drug into a dead person, despite the fact there is a degree of evidence that suggests that far from improving outcomes from arrest, epi might in fact cause worse outcomes.

What has been shown repeatedly is that good quality CPR is absolutely vital in achieving good outcomes, and that people can't do consistant, good quality CPR for long. Further studies may be required into automated CPR devices, however there is a sound theoretical basis to start doing those studies.

I respectfully disagree that ROSC is the sole measure of success that we should be using. International experience and studies have shown that a wide range of systems improvements and interventions such as therapeutic hypothermia can improve survival to discharge and neurological status at discharge and at 6 and 12 months, and this is the measure we should be looking at. I can get a huge number of patients to hospital with a pulse, but that doesn't mean they'll ever leave hospital.
 
Michael Sykes said:
What would you consider to be a unworkable victim of an unwitnessed arrest? At what point do we give up?
Click to expand...

If i get there and it was an unwitnessed arrest, and the patient isnt warm, and they are in asystole, i dont work it. Also, we have the ability to stop CPR that bystanders or fire dept started. We pronounce them dead and call the Medical examiner ourselves. if the ME releases the body we also help the family contact a funeral home before leaving the scene.
 
Maybe its just me but sometimes I wonder if we aren't getting too technical. The problem with machines is they fail, and typically when you need them the most. Ever got a flat tire when it was convenient? Was there ever a time when your car wouldn't start where thought "good thing I marked this in my day planner". I am all for neat gadgets, but sometimes we take it too far. We become too complacent and comfortable with the less reliable, and in the end no one is happy.

I am reminded of the women who was driving an RV who set her cruise control. While she was driving down the road she decided she wanted a sandwich and went back to the kitchen to make one. Needless to say she ran off the road and totaled the RV. She later sued and somehow won because the company never said you had to remain at the wheel. We have cars now which have apparently fixed even that little problem...now they brake for you, and even correct the steering. In my opinion this is only going to foster complacency and irresponsibility.

I don't know, maybe I am wrong, just making an observation from history; or maybe I am just talking out of fear of change. I am curious to see the QA results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure machines fail, but look at the statistics of how effective humans do CPR. We do not want to become too reliant on technology, but we also shouldn't discount it if it isn't perfect.
 
I agree...I am just a skeptic is all. I am not closed to the idea, just a little doubtful is all.
 
Doubtful of what exactly? That it can do more effective compressions than a human or something else?
 
Aidey said:
Doubtful of what exactly? That it can do more effective compressions than a human or something else?
Click to expand...

Doubtful of the practicality and effectiveness of such a device. I can teach a person how to be effective at CPR, and I can even correct at that moment, but if I am using, and placing faith, in a machine so I can do other things I am not paying attention to it, and so its a reliability issue as well.

I am not saying its a bad idea, merely that its concerning. I think we need to be careful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeffrey_169 said:
Maybe its just me but sometimes I wonder if we aren't getting too technical. The problem with machines is they fail, and typically when you need them the most. Ever got a flat tire when it was convenient? Was there ever a time when your car wouldn't start where thought "good thing I marked this in my day planner". I am all for neat gadgets, but sometimes we take it too far. We become too complacent and comfortable with the less reliable, and in the end no one is happy.
Click to expand...

Comfortable with the less reliable... The less reliable what? Should we stop driving ambulances because they break down? I've owned horses for years, they almost never break down. A horse and buggy is far more reliable than my Ford, perhaps we should use them instead. Less moving parts, less to go wrong I suppose.

What exactly is too technical about ensuring that CPR is performed to optimal levels 100% of the time?

I am reminded of the women who was driving an RV who set her cruise control. While she was driving down the road she decided she wanted a sandwich and went back to the kitchen to make one. Needless to say she ran off the road and totaled the RV. She later sued and somehow won because the company never said you had to remain at the wheel. We have cars now which have apparently fixed even that little problem...now they brake for you, and even correct the steering. In my opinion this is only going to foster complacency and irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what? What on earth does an apocryphal anecdote regarding gross stupidity on behalf of a motorist have to do with automated CPR devices?

I can teach a person how to be effective at CPR, and I can even correct at that moment, but if I am using, and placing faith, in a machine so I can do other things I am not paying attention to it, and so its a reliability issue as well.
Click to expand...

What we can't do is overcome the simple fact that rescuers fatigue, ensuring that the effectiveness of CPR is decreased. Not going to happen with an automated device. If in the off chance the machine does fail, you go back to the old fashioned way of jumping up and down on chests.
If you can't keep an eye on an automated device during a resus, how on earth do you cope? Surely you watch for rhythm changes, changes in EtCO2 that might signify ROSC, times for defib, times for drugs, doses for drugs and so on? What about post-ROSC? Multiple infusions, cooling, paralysis, 12 lead, haemodynamics, ventilation, oxygenation, notification to hospital... surely checking that a machine is going "thump thump thump" regularly is a fairly simple part of the whole system?
 
We become so in tune with technology and when they fail we don't remember the skills. Technology is nice, but we need to remember the skills for when it fails.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a providers forget how to do compressions, then you have other problems. These devices are not new, they have been out for around 5 years now and have been shown to be effective and reliable. Most instances of failure are due to operator error. I would take one over 5 providers doing compressions. The machine is constant and does not fatigue or change rate.

Technology is designed to make things better. If you allow yourself to forget how to do things manually, then that is a problem you must fix. As long as we are still training people in the manual way of doing things, there is no problem.

GPS has been out for years. Most of us use them daily. We can still pick up a map and find our way around, if we need to. The problem you run into, is the newer people that are not trained on how to read a map book as a back up. This is the fault that we run into. Always train for worst case and hope for the best!

A lot of services now use epcr's. Does this mean that you stop showing new providers how to write a paper report? No. Because we all know that computers can go down at any time and you need a back up. This also does not mean that epcr's have not made advancement in reporting better. We are able to track statistics better and pull Pt's records faster.

Technology is here to stay. So, learn to embrace it and use it to it's benefit. But, always have a backup plan ready to go!
 
reaper said:
If a providers forget how to do compressions, then you have other problems. These devices are not new, they have been out for around 5 years now and have been shown to be effective and reliable. Most instances of failure are due to operator error. I would take one over 5 providers doing compressions. The machine is constant and does not fatigue or change rate.

Technology is designed to make things better. If you allow yourself to forget how to do things manually, then that is a problem you must fix. As long as we are still training people in the manual way of doing things, there is no problem.

GPS has been out for years. Most of us use them daily. We can still pick up a map and find our way around, if we need to. The problem you run into, is the newer people that are not trained on how to read a map book as a back up. This is the fault that we run into. Always train for worst case and hope for the best!

A lot of services now use epcr's. Does this mean that you stop showing new providers how to write a paper report? No. Because we all know that computers can go down at any time and you need a back up. This also does not mean that epcr's have not made advancement in reporting better. We are able to track statistics better and pull Pt's records faster.

Technology is here to stay. So, learn to embrace it and use it to it's benefit. But, always have a backup plan ready to go!
Click to expand...

My point exactly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top