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
- PMID: 26607332
- DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.023
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
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.
Copyright © 2015 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Review: Mechanical and manual CPR do not differ for survival or neurologic outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Ann Intern Med. 2016 Apr 19;164(8):JC46. doi: 10.7326/ACPJC-2016-164-8-046. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27089096 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 20;8(8):CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 30125048 Free PMC article.
-
Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non-asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 27;3(3):CD010134. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010134.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28349529 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 27;(2):CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 20;8:CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub4. PMID: 24574099 Updated. Review.
-
Chest-compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for children with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Resuscitation. 2019 Jan;134:81-90. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.10.032. Epub 2018 Nov 2. Resuscitation. 2019. PMID: 30391520
-
Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2015 Mar 14;385(9972):947-55. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61886-9. Epub 2014 Nov 16. Lancet. 2015. PMID: 25467566 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis.Exp Ther Med. 2024 Oct 16;28(6):458. doi: 10.3892/etm.2024.12748. eCollection 2024 Dec. Exp Ther Med. 2024. PMID: 39478734 Free PMC article.
-
An update on the mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cardiac arrest patients.Crit Care. 2024 Oct 22;28(1):340. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05131-7. Crit Care. 2024. PMID: 39438999 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Manual mastery vs. mechanized magic: current opinions on manual vs. mechanical chest compressions.Curr Opin Crit Care. 2024 Dec 1;30(6):597-602. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001208. Epub 2024 Sep 9. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2024. PMID: 39258342 Review.
-
Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more.Crit Care. 2024 Jul 30;28(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-05037-4. Crit Care. 2024. PMID: 39080740 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the Thumper Device for Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Jul 3;24(7):191. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2407191. eCollection 2023 Jul. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2023. PMID: 39077014 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
