Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Resuscitation. 2015 Sep;94:91-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.002. Epub 2015 Jul 17.

Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: s.gates@warwick.ac.uk.
2
School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Duke of Kent Building, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK; Surrey Perioperative, Anaesthetic and Critical Care Collaborative Research Group, Surrey Health Partners, Egerton Road, Guildford GU2 8DR, UK.
3
South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Otterbourne, UK; NIHR Southampton Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
4
North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Bernicia House, Goldcrest Way, Newburn Riverside, Newcastle upon Tyne NE15 8NY, UK.
5
Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK; Academic Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care, Pain and Resuscitation, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK.
6
Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

Abstract

AIM:

To summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS:

Systematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of mechanical chest compression. We included randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised trials that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression for adult patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival of event, overall survival, survival with good neurological outcome. Results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES:

Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles.

RESULTS:

Five trials were included, of which three evaluated the LUCAS or LUCAS-2 device and two evaluated the AutoPulse device. The results did not show an advantage to the use of mechanical chest compression devices for survival to discharge/30 days (average OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77, 1.02) and survival with good neurological outcome (average OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53, 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS:

Existing studies do not suggest that mechanical chest compression devices are superior to manual chest compression, when used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.

KEYWORDS:

AutoPulse; Cardiac arrest; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; LUCAS; Mechanical chest compression

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center