Manual chest compressions outperform mechanical: meta-analysis of RCTs

  • Khan SU & al.
  • Resuscitation
  • 7 May 2018

  • curated by Jenny Blair, MD
  • Clinical Essentials
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • For patients in cardiac arrest receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), manual compressions are associated with substantially better rates of 30-day survival and discharge than are automated compressions.

Why this matters

  • Survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States has been estimated at 12%.
  • High-quality chest compressions during CPR are difficult to deliver.
  • AutoPulse (Zoll Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA) and LUCAS (Physio-Control/Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) are FDA-approved devices that deliver chest compressions.
  • Evidence of device efficacy and safety is mixed.
  • Previous meta-analyses included observational data.

Key results

  • Manual compression vs AutoPulse:
    • Survival or discharge: OR, 1.40 (95% credible interval, 1.09-1.94).
    • Neurological recovery: OR, 1.51 (1.06-2.39).
    • Pneumothorax: OR, 0.56 (0.33-0.97).
    • Hematoma: OR, 0.15 (0.01-0.73).
  • LUCAS vs AutoPulse:
    • Hematoma: OR, 0.07 (0.00-0.43).
  • All had similar rates of survival to hospital admission, return of spontaneous circulation.
  • With manual compression, highest probability of survival or discharge, survival to hospital admission, neurological improvement; lowest probability of tension pneumothorax.
  • With AutoPulse, lowest probability of visceral damage.

Study design

  • Systematic review, Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials comparing manual to automatic compressions during CPR for cardiac arrest (mostly out-of-hospital; total n=12,908).
  • Primary outcome: 30-day survival or hospital discharge.
  • Funding: None disclosed.

Limitations

  • Heterogeneous, open-label studies.

Please confirm your acceptance

To gain full access to GPnotebook please confirm:

By submitting here you confirm that you have accepted Terms of Use and Privacy Policy of GPnotebook.

Submit