Dataset Information

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments.

Results

There were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01).

Conclusion

Although there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Larik MO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10883626 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Larik Muhammad Omar MO Ahmed Ayesha A Shiraz Moeez Ibrahim MI Shiraz Seemin Afshan SA Anjum Muhammad Umair MU Bhattarai Pratik P

Medicine 20240201 8

<h4>Background</h4>Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from ...[more]

PMID: 38394534

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThere is considerable interest in reducing the cost of clinical trials. Linkage of trial data to administrative datasets and disease-specific registries may improve trial efficiency, but it has not been reported in resuscitation trials conducted in the UK. To assess the feasibility of using national administrative and clinical datasets to follow up patients transported to hospital following attempted resuscitation in a cluster randomised trial of a mechanical chest compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.MethodsHospital data on trial participants were requested from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, and Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and National Audit of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions, using unique patient identifiers. Linked data were received between June 2014 and June 2015.ResultsOf 4471 patients randomised in the pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial, 2398 (53.6%) were not known to be deceased at emergency department arrival and were eligible for linkage. We achieved an overall match rate of 86.7% in the combined HES accident and emergency, inpatient and critical care dataset, with variable match rates (4.2%-80.4%) in individual datasets. Patient demographics, cardiac arrest-related characteristics and major outcomes were predominantly similar between HES matched and unmatched groups, in the linkage apart from location, response time and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at handover.ConclusionsThis study shows that it is feasible to track patients from the prehospital setting through to hospital admission using routinely available administrative datasets with a moderate to high degree of success. This approach has the potential to complement the trial data with the demographic and clinical management information about the studied cohort, as well as to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs of follow-up in cardiac arrest trials.Clinical trial registrationISRCTN08233942; Post-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Current guidelines underline the importance of high-quality chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), to improve outcomes. Contrary to this many studies show that chest compression is often carried out poorly in clinical practice, and long interruptions in compression are observed. This prospective cohort study aimed to analyse whether chest compression quality changes when a real-time feedback system is used to provide simultaneous audiovisual feedback on chest compression quality. For this purpose, pauses in compression, compression frequency and compression depth were compared. METHODS:The study included 292 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in three consecutive study groups: first group, conventional resuscitation (no-sensor CPR); second group, using a feedback sensor to collect compression depth data without real-time feedback (sensor-only CPR); and third group, with real-time feedback on compression quality (sensor-feedback CPR). Pauses and frequency were analysed using compression artefacts on electrocardiography, and compression depth was measured using the feedback sensor. With this data, various parameters were determined in order to be able to compare the chest compression quality between the three consecutive groups. RESULTS:The compression fraction increased with sensor-only CPR (group 2) in comparison with no-sensor CPR (group 1) (80.1% vs. 87.49%; P < 0.001), but there were no further differences belonging compression fraction after activation of sensor-feedback CPR (group 3) (P = 1.00). Compression frequency declined over the three study groups, reaching the guideline recommendations (127.81 comp/min vs. 122.96 comp/min, P = 0.02 vs. 119.15 comp/min, P = 0.008) after activation of sensor-feedback CPR (group 3). Mean compression depth only changed minimally with sensor-feedback (52.49 mm vs. 54.66 mm; P = 0.16), but the fraction of compressions with sufficient depth (at least 5 cm) and compressions within the recommended 5-6 cm increased significantly with sensor-feedback CPR (56.90% vs. 71.03%; P = 0.003 and 28.74% vs. 43.97%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:The real-time feedback system improved chest compression quality regarding pauses in compression and compression frequency and facilitated compliance with the guideline recommendations. Compression depth did not change significantly after activation of the real-time feedback. Even the sole use of a CPR-feedback-sensor ("sensor-only CPR") improved performance regarding pauses in compression and compression frequency, a phenomenon known as the 'Hawthorne effect'. Based on this data real-time feedback systems can be expected to raise the quality level in some parts of chest compression quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organisation and German Register of Clinical Trials (DRKS00009903), Registered 09 February 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:IntroductionWhether ultrasonography (US) contributes to delays in chest compressions and hence a negative impact on survival is uncertain. In this study we aimed to investigate the impact of US on chest compression fraction (CCF) and patient survival.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed video recordings of the resuscitation process in a convenience sample of adult patients with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients receiving US once or more during resuscitation were categorized as the US group, while the patients who did not receive US were categorized as the non-US group. The primary outcome was CCF, and the secondary outcomes were the rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and discharge, and survival to discharge with a favorable neurological outcome between the two groups. We also evaluated the individual pause duration and the percentage of prolonged pauses associated with US.ResultsA total of 236 patients with 3,386 pauses were included. Of these patients, 190 received US and 284 pauses were related to US. Longer resuscitation duration was observed in the US group (median, 30.3 vs 9.7 minutes, P<.001). The US group had comparable CCF (93.0% vs 94.3%, P=0.29) with the non-US group. Although the non-US group had a better rate of ROSC (36% vs 52%, P=0.04), the rates of survival to admission (36% vs 48%, P=0.13), survival to discharge (11% vs 15%, P=0.37), and survival with favorable neurological outcome (5% vs 9%, P=0.23) did not differ between the two groups. The pause duration of pulse checks with US was longer than pulse checks alone (median, 8 vs 6 seconds, P=0.02). The percentage of prolonged pauses was similar between the two groups (16% vs 14%, P=0.49).ConclusionWhen compared to the non-ultrasound group, patients receiving US had comparable chest compression fractions and rates of survival to admission and discharge, and survival to discharge with a favorable neurological outcome. The individual pause was lengthened related to US. However, patients without US had a shorter resuscitation duration and a better rate of ROSC. The trend toward poorer results in the US group was possibly due to confounding variables and nonprobability sampling. It should be better investigated in further randomized studies.

Dataset Information

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets