Judith L Bonnes1, Marc A Brouwer2, Eliano P Navarese3, Dominique V M Verhaert2, Freek W A Verheugt2, Joep L R M Smeets2, Menko-Jan de Boer2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: judithbonnes@gmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Mechanical chest compression devices have been developed to facilitate continuous delivery of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Despite promising hemodynamic data, evidence on clinical outcomes remains inconclusive. With the completion of 3 randomized controlled trials, we conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of in-field mechanical versus manual CPR on clinical outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: With a systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries), we identified all eligible studies (randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies) that compared a CPR strategy including an automated mechanical chest compression device with a strategy of manual CPR only. Outcome variables were survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and favorable neurologic outcome. RESULTS: Twenty studies (n=21,363) were analyzed: 5 randomized controlled trials and 15 nonrandomized studies, pooled separately. For survival to admission, the pooled estimate of the randomized controlled trials did not indicate a difference (odds ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.05; P=.24) between mechanical and manual CPR. In contrast, meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies demonstrated a benefit in favor of mechanical CPR (odds ratio 1.42; 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.67; P<.001). No interaction was found between the endorsed CPR guidelines (2000 versus 2005) and the CPR strategy (P=.27). Survival to discharge and neurologic outcome did not differ between strategies. CONCLUSION: Although there are lower-quality, observational data that suggest that mechanical CPR used at the rescuer's discretion could improve survival to hospital admission, the cumulative high-quality randomized evidence does not support a routine strategy of mechanical CPR to improve survival or neurologic outcome. These findings are irrespective of the endorsed CPR guidelines during the study periods.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Mechanical chest compression devices have been developed to facilitate continuous delivery of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Despite promising hemodynamic data, evidence on clinical outcomes remains inconclusive. With the completion of 3 randomized controlled trials, we conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of in-field mechanical versus manual CPR on clinical outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: With a systematic search (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries), we identified all eligible studies (randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies) that compared a CPR strategy including an automated mechanical chest compression device with a strategy of manual CPR only. Outcome variables were survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and favorable neurologic outcome. RESULTS: Twenty studies (n=21,363) were analyzed: 5 randomized controlled trials and 15 nonrandomized studies, pooled separately. For survival to admission, the pooled estimate of the randomized controlled trials did not indicate a difference (odds ratio 0.94; 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.05; P=.24) between mechanical and manual CPR. In contrast, meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies demonstrated a benefit in favor of mechanical CPR (odds ratio 1.42; 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.67; P<.001). No interaction was found between the endorsed CPR guidelines (2000 versus 2005) and the CPR strategy (P=.27). Survival to discharge and neurologic outcome did not differ between strategies. CONCLUSION: Although there are lower-quality, observational data that suggest that mechanical CPR used at the rescuer's discretion could improve survival to hospital admission, the cumulative high-quality randomized evidence does not support a routine strategy of mechanical CPR to improve survival or neurologic outcome. These findings are irrespective of the endorsed CPR guidelines during the study periods.
Authors: J Thannhauser; J Nas; R A Waalewijn; N van Royen; J L Bonnes; M A Brouwer; M J de Boer Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 2.854
Authors: Urs Pietsch; David Reiser; Volker Wenzel; Jürgen Knapp; Mario Tissi; Lorenz Theiler; Simon Rauch; Lorenz Meuli; Roland Albrecht Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Keith Couper; Tom Quinn; Ranjit Lall; Anne Devrell; Barry Orriss; Kate Seers; Joyce Yeung; Gavin D Perkins Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 2.953