Background: Cardiac arrest (CA) is a serious threat to human health. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective treatment for CA. Early and high-quality CPR is closely related to the survival rate of patients with CA. But manual chest compression has a lot of defects. To solve the defects and improve the quality of CPR, mechanical CPR device was invented. However, it has still controversy whether manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression is better. This systematic review was aimed to investigate the difference in clinical outcomes between manual chest compression and Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) assisted CPR in patients with out-hospital CA.
Methods: Original research studies, conducted on adult out-of-hospital CA, were included. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang database were searched from the setting to February 21, 2019. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was selected as effect scale index for evaluation of the difference in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, and survival to 30 days. Random effects model was used in this study to estimate overall mean effects.
Results: A total of 6 articles, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, were selected. And 8501 subjects were involved to analyze the clinical outcomes of LUCAS and manual chest compression for patients with out-hospital CA. Comparisons of ROSC (33.3% vs 33.0%, P = .98; OR = 1; 95% CI: [0.89,1.13]), survival to hospital admission (22.7% vs 24.3%, P = .32; OR = 0.86; 95% CI: [0.65,1.15]), survival to hospital discharge (8.6% vs 10.7%, P = .50; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]), and survival to 30 days (7.5% vs 8.5%, P = .50; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]) were made. No significant difference was found.
Conclusion: The synthesis of available evidence does not support that mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device improves clinical outcome in out-of-hospital CA patients compared with manual chest compression. Large scale studies with improved designs are still needed in the future.