Advertisement

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

      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.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ACEP Member Login
      ACEP Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Purchase one-time access:

      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Berdowski J.
        • Berg R.A.
        • Tijssen J.G.
        • et al.
        Global incidences of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and survival rates: systematic review of 67 prospective studies.
        Resuscitation. 2010; 81: 1479-1487
        • Nichol G.
        • Thomas E.
        • Callaway C.W.
        • et al.
        • Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators
        Regional variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome.
        JAMA. 2008; 300: 1423-1431
        • Blom M.T.
        • Beesems S.G.
        • Homma P.C.
        • et al.
        Improved survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and use of automated external defibrillators.
        Circulation. 2014; 130: 1868-1875
        • Hüpfl M.
        • Selig H.F.
        • Nagele P.
        Chest-compression-only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis.
        Lancet. 2010; 376: 1552-1557
        • Halperin H.R.
        • Paradis N.
        • Ornato J.P.
        • et al.
        Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a novel chest compression device in a porcine model of cardiac arrest: improved hemodynamics and mechanisms.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 2214-2220
        • Timerman S.
        • Cardoso L.F.
        • Ramires J.A.
        • et al.
        Improved hemodynamic performance with a novel chest compression device during treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Resuscitation. 2004; 61: 273-280
        • Duchateau F.X.
        • Gueye P.
        • Curac S.
        • et al.
        Effect of the AutoPulse automated band chest compression device on hemodynamics in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.
        Intensive Care Med. 2010; 36: 1256-1260
        • Ong M.E.
        • Ornato J.P.
        • Edwards D.P.
        • et al.
        Use of an automated, load-distributing band chest compression device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation.
        JAMA. 2006; 295: 2629-2637
        • Swanson M.
        • Poniatowski M.
        • O’Keefe M.
        • et al.
        A CPR assist device increased emergency department admission and end tidal carbon dioxide partial pressures during treatment of out of hospital cardiac arrest.
        Circulation. 2006; 114: II-554
        • Hallstrom A.
        • Rea T.D.
        • Sayre M.R.
        • et al.
        Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial.
        JAMA. 2006; 295: 2620-2628
        • Paradis N.A.
        • Young G.
        • Lemeshow S.
        • et al.
        Inhomogeneity and temporal effects in AutoPulse Assisted Prehospital International Resuscitation—an exception from consent trial terminated early.
        Am J Emerg Med. 2010; 28: 391-398
        • Rubertsson S.
        • Lindgren E.
        • Smekal D.
        • et al.
        Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 53-61
        • Wik L.
        • Olsen J.A.
        • Persse D.
        • et al.
        Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial.
        Resuscitation. 2014; 85: 741-748
        • Perkins G.D.
        • Lall R.
        • Quinn T.
        • et al.
        • PARAMEDIC Trial Collaborators
        Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2015; 385: 947-955
      1. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/.

        • Stroup D.F.
        • Berlin J.A.
        • Morton S.C.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.
        JAMA. 2000; 283: 2008-2012
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • et al.
        • PRISMA Group
        Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 264-269
        • Navarese E.P.
        • Koziński M.
        • Pafundi T.
        • et al.
        Practical and updated guidelines on performing meta-analyses of non-randomized studies in interventional cardiology.
        Cardiol J. 2011; 18: 3-7
      2. Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care—an international consensus on science.
        Resuscitation. 2000; 46: 3-430
      3. International guidelines 2000 for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a consensus on science.
        Circulation. 2000; 102 (I-1-I-11)
      4. American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care.
        Circulation. 2005; 112 (15): 1-203
        • Nolan J.P.
        • Deakin C.D.
        • Soar J.
        • et al.
        European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005: section 4. Adult advanced life support.
        Resuscitation. 2005; 67: S39-86
        • Deakin C.D.
        • Nolan J.P.
        • Soar J.
        • et al.
        European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2010 section 4. Adult advanced life support.
        Resuscitation. 2010; 81: 1305-1352
        • Casner M.
        • Andersen D.
        • Isaacs S.M.
        The impact of a new CPR assist device on rate of return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005; 9: 61-67
        • Axelsson C.
        • Nestin J.
        • Svensson L.
        • et al.
        Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest—a pilot study.
        Resuscitation. 2006; 71: 47-55
        • Maule Y.
        Mechanical external chest compression: a new adjuvant technology in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
        Urgences Accueil. 2007; 7
        • Steinmetz J.
        • Barnung S.
        • Nielsen S.L.
        • et al.
        Improved survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using new guidelines.
        Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008; 52: 908-913
        • Jennings P.A.
        • Harriss L.
        • Bernard S.
        • et al.
        An automated CPR device compared with standard chest compressions for out-of-hospital resuscitation.
        BMC Emerg Med. 2012; 12: 8
        • Satterlee P.A.
        • Boland L.L.
        • Johnson P.J.
        • et al.
        Implementation of a mechanical chest compression device as standard equipment in a large metropolitan ambulance service.
        J Emerg Med. 2013; 45: 562-569
        • Axelsson C.
        • Herrera M.J.
        • Fredriksson M.
        • et al.
        Implementation of mechanical chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in an emergency medical service system.
        Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31: 1196-1200
        • Lairet J.R.
        • Lee M.
        A comparison of standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus the Autopulse mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation device.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2005; 46: S114
        • Ornato J.P.
        • Peberdy M.A.
        • Edwards D.P.
        • et al.
        Improvement in field return of spontaneous circulation using circumferential chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005; 9: 104
        • Wilde R.
        • Weijden P.
        • Haan M.
        • et al.
        ROSC at hospital admission in out of hospital cardiac arrest using LUCAS.
        Resuscitation. 2008; 77: S49
        • Paradis N.A.
        • Kamlan D.
        • Ghilarducci D.
        • et al.
        • California AutoPulse Registry Steering Committee
        The California AutoPulse Quality Assurance Registry.
        Circulation. 2009; 120: S1457
        • Truhlar A.
        • Hejna P.
        • Zabka L.
        • et al.
        Injuries caused by the autopulse and LUCAS II resuscitation systems compared to manual chest compressions.
        Resuscitation. 2010; 81: S62
        • Morozov S.N.
        • Abdusalamov S.N.
        • Fedorov A.Y.
        Improved prognosis after implementation of chest compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Eur Heart J. 2012; 3: S702
        • Smekal D.
        • Johansson J.
        • Huzevka T.
        • et al.
        A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
        Resuscitation. 2011; 82
        • Pinto D.C.
        • Haden-Pinneri K.
        • Love J.C.
        Manual and automated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): a comparison of associated injury patterns.
        J Forensic Sci. 2013; 58: 904-909
        • Smekal D.
        • Lindgren E.
        • Sandler H.
        • et al.
        CPR-related injuries after manual or mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device: a multicentre study of victims after unsuccessful resuscitation.
        Resuscitation. 2014; 85: 1708-1712
        • Perkins G.D.
        • Woollard M.
        • Cooke M.W.
        • et al.
        • PARAMEDIC Trial Collaborators
        Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol.
        Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010; 18: 58
        • Lerner E.B.
        • Persse D.
        • Souders C.M.
        • et al.
        Design of the Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC) trial: a new state of the art design for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research.
        Resuscitation. 2011; 82: 294-299
        • Rubertsson S.
        • Silfverstolpe J.
        • Rehn L.
        • et al.
        The study protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest) study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation.
        Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013; 21: 5
        • Carron P.
        • Yersin B.
        Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 2234
        • Olsen J.A.
        • Brunborg C.
        • Steinberg M.
        • et al.
        Pre-shock chest compression pause effects on termination of ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia and return of organized rhythm within mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
        Resuscitation. 2015; 93: 158-163
        • Salmen M.
        • Ewy G.A.
        • Sasson C.
        Use of cardiocerebral resuscitation or AHA/ERC 2005 guidelines is associated with improved survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BMJ Open. 2012; 2
        • Søholm H.
        • Kjaergaard J.
        • Bro-Jeppesen J.
        • et al.
        Prognostic implications of level-of-care at tertiary heart centers compared with other hospitals after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015; 8: 268-276