Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest

Abstract

Evidence from RCTs in humans is insufficient to conclude that mechanical chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest are associated with benefit or harm. Widespread use of mechanical devices for chest compressions during cardiac events is not supported by this review. More RCTs that measure and account for the CPR process in both arms are needed to clarify the potential benefit to be derived from this intervention.

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?

“…Our search strategy retrieved 543 references and, after screening the titles and abstracts, nine systematic reviews (SRs) were found to fulfill our inclusion criteria and were considered for qualitative synthesis. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]…”

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?

“…Our search strategy retrieved 543 references and, after screening the titles and abstracts, nine systematic reviews (SRs) were found to fulfill our inclusion criteria and were considered for qualitative synthesis. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]…”

Factors That Affect Recovery of Spontaneous Circulation by Patients With Cardiac Arrest Before Arrival at a Hospital in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea

“…prior study [11], which showed that mechanical compression devices were more effective than CPR in achieving ROSC, and with a review of 1,187 systems [12], which showed no signi cant difference between mechanical compression devices and hand CPR in achieving ROSC. This con icting nding may be a result of the situational environment of the country, because paramedics in Korea they tend to prefer hand CPR over mechanical compression unless the ambulance ride is long.…”

Application of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices and their value in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective analysis of the German Resuscitation Registry

“…[21] A recently updated Cochrane Review investigated the application of mechanical CPR devices in six different trials and found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude either benefit or harm from these mechanical devices and advised that more studies are needed. [10] Another systematic review showed significantly higher ROSC with mechanical CPR, especially in the subgroup of the device manufactured by the sponsor of this meta-analysis. [11]…”

“…The most common outcome variables are haemodynamic parameters and ROSC, or short-term survival. [10, 11] Recently, three major trials have been published. The CIRC trial compared AutoPulse to manual CPR and reported poorer hospital admission and 24-hour survival after AutoPulse CPR, but equal hospital discharge rates and neurology.…”

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?

“…Our search strategy retrieved 543 references and, after screening the titles and abstracts, nine systematic reviews (SRs) were found to fulfill our inclusion criteria and were considered for qualitative synthesis. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]…”

Factors That Affect Recovery of Spontaneous Circulation by Patients With Cardiac Arrest Before Arrival at a Hospital in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea

“…prior study [11], which showed that mechanical compression devices were more effective than CPR in achieving ROSC, and with a review of 1,187 systems [12], which showed no signi cant difference between mechanical compression devices and hand CPR in achieving ROSC. This con icting nding may be a result of the situational environment of the country, because paramedics in Korea they tend to prefer hand CPR over mechanical compression unless the ambulance ride is long.…”

Application of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices and their value in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective analysis of the German Resuscitation Registry

“…[21] A recently updated Cochrane Review investigated the application of mechanical CPR devices in six different trials and found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude either benefit or harm from these mechanical devices and advised that more studies are needed. [10] Another systematic review showed significantly higher ROSC with mechanical CPR, especially in the subgroup of the device manufactured by the sponsor of this meta-analysis. [11]…”

“…The most common outcome variables are haemodynamic parameters and ROSC, or short-term survival. [10, 11] Recently, three major trials have been published. The CIRC trial compared AutoPulse to manual CPR and reported poorer hospital admission and 24-hour survival after AutoPulse CPR, but equal hospital discharge rates and neurology.…”

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?

“…Our search strategy retrieved 543 references and, after screening the titles and abstracts, nine systematic reviews (SRs) were found to fulfill our inclusion criteria and were considered for qualitative synthesis. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]…”

Factors That Affect Recovery of Spontaneous Circulation by Patients With Cardiac Arrest Before Arrival at a Hospital in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea

“…prior study [11], which showed that mechanical compression devices were more effective than CPR in achieving ROSC, and with a review of 1,187 systems [12], which showed no signi cant difference between mechanical compression devices and hand CPR in achieving ROSC. This con icting nding may be a result of the situational environment of the country, because paramedics in Korea they tend to prefer hand CPR over mechanical compression unless the ambulance ride is long.…”

Application of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices and their value in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective analysis of the German Resuscitation Registry

“…[21] A recently updated Cochrane Review investigated the application of mechanical CPR devices in six different trials and found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude either benefit or harm from these mechanical devices and advised that more studies are needed. [10] Another systematic review showed significantly higher ROSC with mechanical CPR, especially in the subgroup of the device manufactured by the sponsor of this meta-analysis. [11]…”

“…The most common outcome variables are haemodynamic parameters and ROSC, or short-term survival. [10, 11] Recently, three major trials have been published. The CIRC trial compared AutoPulse to manual CPR and reported poorer hospital admission and 24-hour survival after AutoPulse CPR, but equal hospital discharge rates and neurology.…”