Effectiveness of mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in an emergency department

Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with the efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) methods playing a crucial role in patient outcomes. The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mechanical and manual CPR in OHCA, focusing on three outcomes: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and survival till discharge. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, incorporating 39 studies for ROSC, 28 for survival to admission, and 30 for survival till discharge, totalling 144,430, 130,499 and 162,088 participants, respectively. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach, assessing risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. Statistical analysis included pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and sensitivity analyses. For ROSC, the pooled OR was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.92-1.29), demonstrating no significant difference between mechanical and manual CPR. Survival to admission favoured mechanical CPR with a pooled OR of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.09-1.43). No conclusive difference was found for survival till discharge, with a pooled OR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.61-1.02). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across outcomes. Evidence of potential publication bias was noted, particularly in the survival to admission outcome. The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low, mainly due to high heterogeneity and indirectness of evidence. The study suggests that mechanical CPR may improve short-term outcomes such as survival to admission in patients with OHCA but does not demonstrate a significant long-term survival benefit over manual CPR.

Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices: Evidence Synthesis with an Umbrella Review

AIM

Sudden cardiac arrest is a significant cause of death worldwide. Good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation increases patients' survival. Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is often ineffective as rescuers may experience physical and mental fatigue. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices are designed to address this issue, providing an automated approach for high-quality resuscitation. In the present comprehensive umbrella review we summarize current evidence on mechanical devices.

METHODS

We searched systematic reviews on mechanical devices in MEDLINE/PubMed. Effect estimates were obtained from original reports, including 95% confidence intervals and p values, when applicable and available, focusing on return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or 30 days, survival with good neurological outcome, and resuscitation-related injuries.

RESULTS

From 21 potentially pertinent publications, we shortlisted 10 reviews, each including between 5 and 22 studies. AutoPulse, LUCAS, and LUCAS-2 were among the investigated devices. Most reviews concluded toward mechanical devices being similar or better than manual resuscitation for return of spontaneous circulation and 30-days survival. Regarding survival with good neurological function, some reviews lacked data, while the remaining ones reported similar results or worse outcomes in patients undergoing mechanical resuscitation. Focusing on resuscitation-related injuries, data were limited or conflicting with one review reporting higher rates of injuries with mechanical devices, and two others suggesting similar outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation appear to be similar in terms of return of spontaneous circulation and short-term survival. Mechanical devices appear to be associated with higher resuscitation-related injuries, while there are conflicting data in terms of survival with good neurological outcomes. A comprehensive and large dedicated randomized trial is urgently needed.

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments.

RESULTS

There were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Although there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

Real-world comparison between mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Healthcare providers are now required to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, mechanical CPR devices have been introduced to reduce the number of personnel required for resuscitation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CPR performed with a mechanical device and the outcomes of manual CPR performed by personnel wearing PPE.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study utilized data from the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium registry. The study population consisted of OHCA patients who underwent CPR in emergency departments (EDs) between March 2020 and June 2021. Patients were divided into two equal propensity score matched groups: mechanical CPR group (n = 421) and PPE-equipped manual CPR group (n = 421). Primary outcomes included survival rates and favorable neurological outcomes at discharge. Total CPR duration in the ED was also assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences with respect to survival rate at discharge (mechanical CPR: 7.4% vs PPE-equipped manual CPR: 8.3%) or favorable neurological outcomes (3.3% vs. 3.8%, respectively). However, the mechanical CPR group had a longer duration of CPR in the ED compared to the manual CPR group.

CONCLUSION

This study found no significant differences in survival rates and neurological outcomes between mechanical CPR and PPE-equipped manual CPR in the ED setting. However, a longer total CPR duration was observed in the mechanical CPR group. Further research is required to explore the impact of PPE on healthcare providers' performance and fatigue during CPR in the context of the pandemic and beyond.

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

In pre-hospital settings, efficient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging; therefore, the application of mechanical CPR devices continues to increase. However, the evidence of the benefits of using mechanical CPR devices in pre-hospital settings for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is controversial. This meta-analysis compared the effects of mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage on clinical outcomes after OHCA. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until October 2021. Studies comparing mechanical and manual CPR applied in the pre-hospital stage for survival outcomes of adult OHCA were eligible. Data abstraction, quality assessment, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation were conducted. Seven randomized controlled and 15 observational studies were included. Compared to manual CPR, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR showed a positive effect in achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to admission. No difference was found in survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological status, with inconclusive results in TSA. In conclusion, pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR devices may benefit adult OHCA in achieving ROSC and survival to admission. With low certainty of evidence, more well-designed large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

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

Background and Objectives: This study analyzed the prognostic impact of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, in comparison to manual CPR. Materials and Methods: This study was a nationwide population-based observational study in South Korea. Data were retrospectively collected from 142,905 OHCA patients using the South Korean Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Surveillance database. We included adult OHCA patients who received manual or mechanical CPR in the emergency room. The primary outcome was survival at discharge and the secondary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Statistical analysis included propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 19,045 manual CPR and 1125 mechanical CPR cases (671 AutoPulse^TM vs. 305 Thumper^TM vs. 149 LUCAS^TM) were included. In the matched multivariate analyses, all mechanical CPR devices were associated with a lower ROSC than that of manual CPR. AutoPulse^TM was associated with lower survival in the multivariate analysis after matching (aOR with 95% CI: 0.57 (0.33–0.96)), but the other mechanical CPR devices were associated with similar survival to discharge as that of manual CPR. Witnessed arrest was commonly associated with high ROSC, but the use of mechanical CPR devices and cardiac origin arrest were associated with low ROSC. Only target temperature management was the common predictor for high survival. Conclusions: The mechanical CPR devices largely led to similar survival to discharge as that of manual CPR in OHCA patients; however, the in-hospital use of the AutoPulse^TM device for mechanical CPR may significantly lower survival compared to manual CPR.

The Effect of Implementing Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients in an Urban City of Taiwan

High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a key element in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation. Mechanical CPR devices have been developed to provide uninterrupted and high-quality CPR. Although human studies have shown controversial results in favor of mechanical CPR devices, their application in pre-hospital settings continues to increase. There remains scant data on the pre-hospital use of mechanical CPR devices in Asia. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective cohort study between September 2018 and August 2020 in an urban city of Taiwan to analyze the effects of mechanical CPR devices on the outcomes of OHCA; the primary outcome was attainment of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Of 552 patients with OHCA, 279 received mechanical CPR and 273 received manual CPR, before being transferred to the hospital. After multivariate adjustment for the influencing factors, mechanical CPR was independently associated with achievement of any ROSC (OR = 1.871; 95%CI:1.195–2.930) and sustained (≥24 h) ROSC (OR = 2.353; 95%CI:1.427–3.879). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that mechanical CPR is beneficial in shorter emergency medical service response time (≤4 min), witnessed cardiac arrest, and non-shockable cardiac rhythm. These findings support the importance of early EMS activation and high-quality CPR in OHCA resuscitation.

Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?

OBJECTIVES:

Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality.

METHODS:

This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system.

RESULTS:

The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%–75% = 117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 102.1–102.7) (P < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%–75% = 32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 51.8–55.0) (P < 0.001). The median hands-off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25–75 = 5.0%–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 8.2%–12.5%) (P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION:

During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.

The Comparison of Manual and Mechanical Chest Compression on Survival and Long-Term Neurological Outcome of Nontraumatic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients

BACKGROUND

High-quality chest compressions are an important determinant for favorable neurological outcome. Associations of long-term mortality and neurological outcomes with chest compression types still require investigation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate 'mechanical or manual CPR' provided in the emergency department after manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) initiated in prehospital settings until admission. Efficacy of chest compression types on survival and favorable neurological outcomes were compared in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients.

METHODS

A total of 818 nontraumatic OHCA patients were evaluated (345 in the manual CPR group and 473 in the mechanical CPR group) retrospectively. One-year survival with a modified Rankin scale (mRS) ≤ 3 was accepted as a favorable neurological outcome.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the CPR methods (mechanical CPR vs. manual CPR) in terms of mortality at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (p = 0.353, p = 0.660, p = 0.679, p = 0.034, respectively). mRS ≤ 3, which was accepted as a favorable neurological status, was found to be 12 (3.5%) and 19 (4%) for the manual CPR and mechanical CPR groups, respectively (p = 0.501).

CONCLUSION

Comparisons of mechanical and manual chest compressions in terms of survival rates and favorable neurological outcomes showed no significant differences. Further investigation of long-term neurological outcomes with mechanical CPR utilization is required.

A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients

Objectives

To evaluate the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods

All randomized controlled and cohort studies comparing the effects of mechanical compression and manual compression on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in OHCA patients were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid databases from the date of their establishment to January 14, 2019. The included outcomes were as follows: the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, the rate of survival to hospital admission, the rate of survival to hospital discharge, and neurological function. After evaluating the quality of the studies and summarizing the results, RevMan5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

In total, 15 studies (9 randomized controlled trials and 6 cohort studies) were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in terms of the ROSC rate, the rate of survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge, and neurological function in OHCA patients (ROSC: RCT: OR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.90, 1.39), P = 0.31; cohort study: OR = 1.08, 95% CI (0.85, 1.36), P = 0.54; survival to hospital admission: RCT: OR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.75, 1.20), P = 0.64; cohort study: OR = 0.98 95% CI (0.79, 1.20), P = 0.82; survival to hospital discharge: RCT: OR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.68, 1.10), P = 0.24; cohort study: OR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.53, 1.16), P = 0.22; Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score: RCT: OR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.64, 1.20), P = 0.41; cohort study: OR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.34, 1.37), P = 0.28). When the mechanical compression group was divided into Lucas and Autopulse subgroups, the Lucas subgroup showed no difference from the manual compression group in ROSC, survival to admission, survival to discharge, and CPC scores; the Autopulse subgroup showed no difference from the manual compression subgroup in ROSC, survival to discharge, and CPC scores.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences in resuscitative effects between mechanical and manual chest compression in OHCA patients. To ensure the quality of CPR, we suggest that manual chest compression be applied in the early stage of CPR for OHCA patients, while mechanical compression can be used as part of advanced life support in the late stage.