Literature DB >> 29746986

Efficacy and safety of mechanical versus manual compression in cardiac arrest - A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Safi U Khan1, Ahmad N Lone2, Swapna Talluri2, Muhammad Z Khan2, Muhammad U Khan3, Edo Kaluski4.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare relative efficacy and safety of mechanical compression devices (AutoPulse and LUCAS) with manual compression in patients with cardiac arrest undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
METHODS: For this Bayesian network meta-analysis, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Inception- 31 October 2017). For all the outcomes, median estimate of odds ratio (OR) from the posterior distribution with corresponding 95% credible interval (Cr I) was calculated. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modeling was used to estimate the relative ranking probability of each intervention based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS: In analysis of 12, 908 patients with cardiac arrest [AutoPulse (2, 608 patients); LUCAS (3, 308 patients) and manual compression (6, 992 patients)], manual compression improved survival at 30 days or hospital discharge (OR, 1.40, 95% Cr I, 1.09-1.94), and neurological recovery (OR, 1.51, 95% Cr I, 1.06-2.39) compared to AutoPulse. There were no differences between LUCAS and AutoPulse with regards to survival to hospital admission, neurological recovery or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Manual compression reduced the risk of pneumothorax (OR, 0.56, 95% Cr I, 0.33-0.97); while, both manual compression (OR, 0.15, 95% Cr I, 0.01-0.73) and LUCAS (OR, 0.07, 95% Cr I, 0.00-0.43) reduced the risk of hematoma formation compared to AutoPulse. Probability analysis ranked manual compression as the most effective treatment for improving survival at 30 days or hospital discharge (SUCRA, 84%).
CONCLUSIONS: Manual compression is more effective than AutoPulse and comparable to LUCAS in improving survival at 30 days or hospital discharge and neurological recovery. Manual compression had lesser risk of pneumothorax or hematoma formation compared to AutoPulse.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cardiac arrest; Compression devices; Network meta-analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29746986      PMCID: PMC6423531          DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.05.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  8 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Mack Sheraton; John Columbus; Salim Surani; Ravinder Chopra; Rahul Kashyap
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2021-07-19

2.  Comparison of in-hospital use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: AUTOPULSE vs LUCAS.

Authors:  Hyun Tae Kim; Jae Guk Kim; Yong Soo Jang; Gu Hyun Kang; Wonhee Kim; Hyun Young Choi; Gwang Soo Jun
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Automated mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of cardiac arrest: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing machine to human.

Authors:  Manuel Obermaier; Johannes B Zimmermann; Erik Popp; Markus A Weigand; Sebastian Weiterer; Alexander Dinse-Lambracht; Claus-Martin Muth; Benedikt L Nußbaum; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Stephan Seewald; Katrin Jensen; Svenja E Seide
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Cheng-Ying Chiang; Ket-Cheong Lim; Pei Chun Lai; Tou-Yuan Tsai; Yen Ta Huang; Ming-Jen Tsai
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 5.  [Adult advanced life support].

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

6.  Computed Tomographic Findings of Injuries After Mechanical and Manual Resuscitation: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Mustafa Emin Canakci; Kubra Parpucu Bagceci; Nurdan Acar; Engin Ozakin; Filiz Baloglu Kaya; Caglar Kuas; Murat Çetin; Betül Tiryaki Baştuğ; Muhammed Evvah Karakılıç
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-05-20

7.  Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Tomasz Kłosiewicz; Mateusz Puślecki; Radosław Zalewski; Maciej Sip; Bartłomiej Perek
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 3.005

8.  Prognostic Impact of In-Hospital Use of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices Compared with Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Nationwide Population-Based Observational Study in South Korea.

Authors:  Wonhee Kim; Chiwon Ahn; In-Young Kim; Hyun-Young Choi; Jae-Guk Kim; Jihoon Kim; Hyungoo Shin; Shinje Moon; Juncheol Lee; Jongshill Lee; Youngsuk Cho; Yoonje Lee; Dong-Geum Shin
Journal:  Medicina (Kaunas)       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 2.430

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.