The Hemodynamic Performance of Two Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices.
TL;DR
Both devices provided effective hemodynamic support during cardiac arrest in the catheterization laboratory, and although Corpuls produced greater increases in diastolic and MAP from baseline, no clear device superiority was demonstrated.
Abstract
Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (mCPR) devices are increasingly used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in intracardiac arrest patients. However, the optimal invasive hemodynamic parameter to guide mCPR remains unclear. This study compared the hemodynamic performance of two devices, LUCAS and Corpuls, using invasive blood pressure (IBP) measurements during early mCPR. This retrospective, single-center study included adult patients undergoing catheterization laboratory procedures (2021-2024). Invasive blood pressure readings were recorded every 10 seconds during initial manual CPR and the first 5 minutes of mCPR. Hemodynamic parameters and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) outcomes were analyzed. Twenty-five cases were analyzed (15 LUCAS, 10 Corpuls; mean age 79.1 ± 14 years; 56% male). Both devices generated higher IBP compared with manual CPR. Corpuls produced greater increases from the manual CPR baseline in ΔDBP (delta diastolic blood pressure) and ΔMAP (delta mean arterial blood pressure), whereas ΔSBP (delta systolic blood pressure) did not differ significantly. Variability metrics were comparable, and ROSC rates were similar. Both devices provided effective hemodynamic support during cardiac arrest in the catheterization laboratory. Although Corpuls produced greater increases in diastolic and MAP from baseline, no clear device superiority was demonstrated. Larger prospective studies are required to define optimal hemodynamic targets during mechanical CPR.