Dataset Information

Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a serious threat to human health. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective treatment for CA. Early and high-quality CPR is closely related to the survival rate of patients with CA. But manual chest compression has a lot of defects. To solve the defects and improve the quality of CPR, mechanical CPR device was invented. However, it has still controversy whether manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression is better. This systematic review was aimed to investigate the difference in clinical outcomes between manual chest compression and Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) assisted CPR in patients with out-hospital CA.

Methods

Original research studies, conducted on adult out-of-hospital CA, were included. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang database were searched from the setting to February 21, 2019. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was selected as effect scale index for evaluation of the difference in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, and survival to 30 days. Random effects model was used in this study to estimate overall mean effects.

Results

A total of 6 articles, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, were selected. And 8501 subjects were involved to analyze the clinical outcomes of LUCAS and manual chest compression for patients with out-hospital CA. Comparisons of ROSC (33.3% vs 33.0%, P?=?.98; OR?=?1; 95% CI: [0.89,1.13]), survival to hospital admission (22.7% vs 24.3%, P?=?.32; OR?=?0.86; 95% CI: [0.65,1.15]), survival to hospital discharge (8.6% vs 10.7%, P?=?.50; OR?=?0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]), and survival to 30 days (7.5% vs 8.5%, P?=?.50; OR?=?0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]) were made. No significant difference was found.

Conclusion

The synthesis of available evidence does not support that mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device improves clinical outcome in out-of-hospital CA patients compared with manual chest compression. Large scale studies with improved designs are still needed in the future.

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6946388 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Mao M Shuai Zhuang Z Ai Jiao J Tang Kai K Liu Hui H Zheng Jiankang J Gou Junqi J Lv Zhan Z

Medicine 20191101 44

<h4>Background</h4>Cardiac arrest (CA) is a serious threat to human health. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective treatment for CA. Early and high-quality CPR is closely related to the survival rate of patients with CA. But manual chest compression has a lot of defects. To solve the defects and improve the quality of CPR, mechanical CPR device was invented. However, it has still controversy whether manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression is better. This systematic ...[more]

PMID: 31689757

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.

Dataset Information

Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets