Simon Gates1, Tom Quinn2, Charles D Deakin3, Laura Blair4, Keith Couper5, Gavin D Perkins6. 1. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: s.gates@warwick.ac.uk. 2. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Duke of Kent Building, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK; Surrey Perioperative, Anaesthetic and Critical Care Collaborative Research Group, Surrey Health Partners, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 8DR, UK. 3. South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Otterbourne, UK; NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK. 4. North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Bernicia House, Goldcrest Way, Newburn Riverside, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 8NY, UK. 5. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK; Academic Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, Pain and Resuscitation, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK. 6. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: Systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of mechanical chest compression. We included randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised trials that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression for adult patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival of event, overall survival, survival with good neurological outcome. Results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles. RESULTS: Five trials were included, of which three evaluated the LUCAS or LUCAS-2 device and two evaluated the AutoPulse device. The results did not show an advantage to the use of mechanical chest compression devices for survival to discharge/30 days (average OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77, 1.02) and survival with good neurological outcome (average OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Existing studies do not suggest that mechanical chest compression devices are superior to manual chest compression, when used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.
AIM: To summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: Systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of mechanical chest compression. We included randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised trials that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression for adult patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival of event, overall survival, survival with good neurological outcome. Results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles. RESULTS: Five trials were included, of which three evaluated the LUCAS or LUCAS-2 device and two evaluated the AutoPulse device. The results did not show an advantage to the use of mechanical chest compression devices for survival to discharge/30 days (average OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77, 1.02) and survival with good neurological outcome (average OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Existing studies do not suggest that mechanical chest compression devices are superior to manual chest compression, when used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Robert A Berg; Stephen Bernard; Bentley J Bobrow; Clifton W Callaway; Tobias Cronberg; Rudolph W Koster; Peter J Kudenchuk; Graham Nichol; Gavin D Perkins; Tom D Rea; Claudio Sandroni; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Alain Cariou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Robert A Berg; Clifton W Callaway; Laurie J Morrison; Vinay Nadkarni; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Markus B Skrifvars; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Alain Cariou Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bander Aziz Al Enizi; Nazmus Saquib; Mohamed Saddik Abdelkawi Zaghloul; Mohammed Suliman Abdullah Alaboud; Muhammad Siddique Shahid; Juliann Saquib Journal: Int J Health Sci (Qassim) Date: 2016-07
Authors: M Bernhard; N H Behrens; J Wnent; S Seewald; S Brenner; T Jantzen; A Bohn; J T Gräsner; M Fischer Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Thomas Luiz; Alexander Wilhelms; Christian Madler; Gregor Pollach; Bernd Haaff; Joachim Grüttner; Tim Viergutz Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: Marek Malysz; Marek Dabrowski; Bernd W Böttiger; Jacek Smereka; Klaudia Kulak; Agnieszka Szarpak; Milosz Jaguszewski; Krzysztof J Filipiak; Jerzy R Ladny; Kurt Ruetzler; Lukasz Szarpak Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Benjamin Ondruschka; Christina Baier; Ronny Bayer; Niels Hammer; Jan Dreßler; Michael Bernhard Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826