Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compressions in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Abstract

The ability to achieve return of spontaneous circulation with mechanical chest compression devices is significantly improved when compared with manual chest compressions. In the case of load-distributing band cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it was superior to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the odds of return of spontaneous circulation were over 1.6 times greater. The robustness of these findings should be tested in large randomized clinical trials.

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

“…Because of the inclusion of recent large trials in this review, our conclusions can be firmer than those of the most recent update of the Cochrane review. 7 They also differ from those of another recent review and meta-analysis, 19 which found, mainly from observational evidence, an improvement in the odds of ROSC with mechanical chest compression.…”

Comparative Hemodynamic Evaluation of the LUCAS® Device and Manual Chest Compression in Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

“…Concerning pig models, certain authors have reported that mechanical chest compression, whatever the device, provides better coronary and thus myocardial perfusion and a greater probability of ROSC [22,23]. The same conclusions have been drawn in studies on cerebral perfusion or on cerebral blood low, and perfusion pressures recorded in the internal carotid were greater with mechanical methods than with the manual method [24].…”

Pneumothoraces Post Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Case Series

“…2,3 They also allow for prolonged resuscitation, with documented success after 80 min in one case report. 4 AM-CPR devices have been found to improve coronary and cerebral perfusion pressures [5][6][7] and return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 8 although this has not withstood systematic review. [9][10][11] Complications associated with mechanical CPR devices are often assumed to be similar to those associated with manual CPR, and studies comparing head-to-head complication rates are sparse.…”