These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus CPR Including a Mechanical Chest Compression Device in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis From Randomized and Observational Studies.
    Author: Bonnes JL, Brouwer MA, Navarese EP, Verhaert DV, Verheugt FW, Smeets JL, de Boer MJ.
    Journal: Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):349-360.e3. PubMed ID: 26607332.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]