A manually powered mechanical resuscitation device used by a single rescuer: a randomised controlled manikin study

The goal of this randomized, open, controlled crossover manikin study was to compare the performance of "Animax", a manually operated hand-powered mechanical resuscitation device (MRD) to standard single rescuer basic life support (BLS).

Treatment of acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: lower costs by intermittent dialysis than continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration

Intermittent and continuous renal replacement therapies (RRTs) are available for the treatment of acute renal failure (ARF) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Although at present there are no adequately powered survival studies, available data suggest that both methods are equal with respect to patient outcome. Therefore, cost comparison between techniques is important for selecting the modality. Expenditures were prospectively assessed as a secondary end point during a controlled, randomized trial comparing intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). The outcome of the primary end points of this trial, that is, ICU and in-hospital mortality, has been previously published. One hundred twenty-five patients from a Swiss university hospital ICU were randomized either to CVVHDF or IHD. Out of these, 42 (CVVHDF) and 34 (IHD) were available for cost analysis. Patients' characteristics, delivered dialysis dose, duration of stay in the ICU or hospital, mortality rates, and recovery of renal function were not different between the two groups. Detailed 24-h time and material consumption protocols were available for 369 (CVVHDF) and 195 (IHD) treatment days. The mean daily duration of CVVHDF was 19.5 +/- 3.2 h/day, resulting in total expenditures of Euro 436 +/- 21 (21% for human resources and 79% for technical devices). For IHD (mean 3.0 +/- 0.4 h/treatment), the costs were lower (Euro 268 +/- 26), with a larger proportion for human resources (45%). Nursing time spent for CVVHDF was 113 +/- 50 min, and 198 +/- 63 min per IHD treatment. Total costs for RRT in ICU patients with ARF were lower when treated with IHD than with CVVHDF, and have to be taken into account for the selection of the method of RRT in ARF on the ICU.

Drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents in patients with cardiogenic shock: a comparison by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND In patients with cardiogenic shock, data on the comparative safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) vs. bare metal stents (BMSs) are lacking. We sought to assess the performance of DESs compared with BMSs among patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS Out of 236 patients with acute coronary syndromes complicated by cardiogenic shock, 203 were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint included death, and the secondary endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) included the composite of death, myocardial infarction, any repeat revascularization and stroke. Patients were followed for a minimum of 30 days and up to 4 years. As stent assignment was not random, we performed a propensity score analysis to minimize potential bias. RESULTS Among patients treated with DESs, there was a lower risk of the primary and secondary endpoints compared with BMSs at 30 days (29 vs. 56%, P < 0.001; 34 vs. 58%, P = 0.001, respectively) and during long-term follow-up [hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.65, P < 0.001; hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.71, P < 0.001, respectively]. After propensity score adjustment, all-cause mortality was reduced among patients treated with DESs compared with BMSs both at 30 days [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.62; P = 0.002] and during long-term follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.72; P = 0.002). The rate of MACCE was lower among patients treated with DESs compared with those treated with BMSs at 30 days (adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.95; P = 0.036). The difference in MACCEs between devices approached significance during long-term follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.01; P = 0.052). CONCLUSION DESs appear to be associated with improved clinical outcomes, including a reduction in all-cause mortality compared with BMSs among patients undergoing PCI for cardiogenic shock, possibly because of a pacification of the infarct-related artery by anti-inflammatory drug. The results of this observational study require confirmation in an appropriately powered randomized trial.

Successful pacing using a batteryless sunlight-powered pacemaker.

AIMS Today's cardiac pacemakers are powered by batteries with limited energy capacity. As the battery's lifetime ends, the pacemaker needs to be replaced. This surgical re-intervention is costly and bears the risk of complications. Thus, a pacemaker without primary batteries is desirable. The goal of this study was to test whether transcutaneous solar light could power a pacemaker. METHODS AND RESULTS We used a three-step approach to investigate the feasibility of sunlight-powered cardiac pacing. First, the harvestable power was estimated. Theoretically, a subcutaneously implanted 1 cm(2) solar module may harvest ∼2500 µW from sunlight (3 mm implantation depth). Secondly, ex vivo measurements were performed with solar cells placed under pig skin flaps exposed to a solar simulator and real sunlight. Ex vivo measurements under real sunlight resulted in a median output power of 4941 µW/cm(2) [interquartile range (IQR) 3767-5598 µW/cm(2), median skin flap thickness 3.0 mm (IQR 2.7-3.3 mm)]. The output power strongly depended on implantation depth (ρSpearman = -0.86, P < 0.001). Finally, a batteryless single-chamber pacemaker powered by a 3.24 cm(2) solar module was implanted in vivo in a pig to measure output power and to pace. In vivo measurements showed a median output power of >3500 µW/cm(2) (skin flap thickness 2.8-3.84 mm). Successful batteryless VVI pacing using a subcutaneously implanted solar module was performed. CONCLUSION Based on our results, we estimate that a few minutes of direct sunlight (irradiating an implanted solar module) allow powering a pacemaker for 24 h using a suitable energy storage. Thus, powering a pacemaker by sunlight is feasible and may be an alternative energy supply for tomorrow's pacemakers.

The first batteryless, solar-powered cardiac pacemaker

BACKGROUND: Contemporary pacemakers (PMs) are powered by primary batteries with a limited energy-storing capacity. PM replacements because of battery depletion are common and unpleasant and bear the risk of complications. Batteryless PMs that harvest energy inside the body may overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop a batteryless PM powered by a solar module that converts transcutaneous light into electrical energy. METHODS: Ex vivo measurements were performed with solar modules placed under pig skin flaps exposed to different irradiation scenarios (direct sunlight, shade outdoors, and indoors). Subsequently, 2 sunlight-powered PMs featuring a 4.6-cm2 solar module were implanted in vivo in a pig. One prototype, equipped with an energy buffer, was run in darkness for several weeks to simulate a worst-case scenario. RESULTS: Ex vivo, median output power of the solar module was 1963 μW/cm2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1940-2107 μW/cm2) under direct sunlight exposure outdoors, 206 μW/cm2 (IQR 194-233 μW/cm2) in shade outdoors, and 4 μW/cm2 (IQR 3.6-4.3 μW/cm2) indoors (current PMs use approximately 10-20 μW). Median skin flap thickness was 4.8 mm. In vivo, prolonged SOO pacing was performed even with short irradiation periods. Our PM was able to pace continuously at a rate of 125 bpm (3.7 V at 0.6 ms) for 1½ months in darkness. CONCLUSION: Tomorrow's PMs might be batteryless and powered by sunlight. Because of the good skin penetrance of infrared light, a significant amount of energy can be harvested by a subcutaneous solar module even indoors. The use of an energy buffer allows periods of darkness to be overcome.