Literature DB >> 23660728

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis.

Mark Westfall1, Steve Krantz, Christopher Mullin, Christopher Kaufman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of literature examining rates of return of spontaneous circulation from load-distributing band and piston-driven chest compression devices as compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, and bibliographies on manufacturer websites for studies written in English. STUDY SELECTION: Selection criteria for the meta-analysis required that studies must be human controlled (randomized, historical, or case-control) investigations with confirmed out-of-hospital cases. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 12 studies (load-distributing band cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation = 8, piston-driven cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation = 4), comprising a total of 6,538 subjects with 1,824 return of spontaneous circulation events, met the selection criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects models were used to assess the relative effect of treatments on return of spontaneous circulation. Compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation, load-distributing band cardiopulmonary resuscitation had significantly greater odds of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.36, 1.92], p < 0.001). The treatment effect for piston-driven cardiopulmonary resuscitation was similar to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.92, 1.68];p = 0.151). The corresponding difference in percentages of return of spontaneous circulation rates from cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 8.3% for load-distributing band cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 5.2% for piston-driven cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation, combining both mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices produced a significant treatment effect in favor of higher odds of return of spontaneous circulation with mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices (odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.32, 1.78], p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The ability to achieve return of spontaneous circulation with mechanical chest compression devices is significantly improved when compared with manual chest compressions. In the case of load-distributing band cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it was superior to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the odds of return of spontaneous circulation were over 1.6 times greater. The robustness of these findings should be tested in large randomized clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23660728     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a24e3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  15 in total

1.  Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Peter L Wang; Steven C Brooks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-08-20

2.  Comparisons of the Pentax-AWS, Glidescope, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes for Intubation Performance during Mechanical Chest Compressions in Left Lateral Tilt: A Randomized Simulation Study of Maternal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Authors:  Sanghyun Lee; Wonhee Kim; Hyunggoo Kang; Jaehoon Oh; Tae Ho Lim; Yoonjae Lee; Changsun Kim; Jun Hwi Cho
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Evaluating the Quality of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Emergency Department by Real-Time Video Recording System.

Authors:  Sheng Chen; Wenjie Li; Zhonglin Zhang; Hongye Min; Hong Li; Huiqi Wang; Yugang Zhuang; Yuanzhuo Chen; Chengjin Gao; Hu Peng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Ultrasound diagnosis of cardiac rupture caused by mechanical chest compression.

Authors:  Ying-Tai Shih; Chai-Hock Chua; Sheng-Wen Hou; Li-Wei Lin; Chee-Fah Chong
Journal:  Turk J Emerg Med       Date:  2018-02-26

5.  Monitoring of cerebral oxygen saturation during resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a feasibility study in a physician staffed emergency medical system.

Authors:  Jens-Christian Schewe; Marcus O Thudium; Jochen Kappler; Folkert Steinhagen; Lars Eichhorn; Felix Erdfelder; Ulrich Heister; Richard Ellerkmann
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Arterial blood pressure differences between AutoPulse™ and Lucas2™ during mechanic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  Manuel Frey; Stefan Lötscher; Lorenz Theiler; Roland Albrecht
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 7.  Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hui Li; Dongping Wang; Yi Yu; Xiang Zhao; Xiaoli Jing
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  Load-distributing-band cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest increases regional cerebral oxygenation: a single-center prospective pilot study.

Authors:  Yoshihito Ogawa; Tadahiko Shiozaki; Tomoya Hirose; Mitsuo Ohnishi; Yasushi Nakamori; Hiroshi Ogura; Takeshi Shimazu
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Lu Tang; Wan-Jie Gu; Fei Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study.

Authors:  Robert A Gyory; Scott E Buchle; David Rodgers; Jeffrey S Lubin
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2017-03-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.