Effectiveness of mechanical versus manual chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: a pilot study. External cardiac compression. A randomized comparison of mechanical and manual techniques. Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not improve survival in patients with prehospital cardiac arrest in a physician-manned emergency medical system. Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial.
A prospective, randomized effectiveness trial was undertaken to compare mechanical versus manual chest compressions as measured by end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) resuscitation from a municipal third-service, emergency medical services (EMS) agency. The EMS agency responds to approximately 6,700 emergencies annually, 79 of which were cardiac arrests in 1994, the study year. Following endotracheal intubation, all cardiac arrest patients were placed on 100% oxygen via the ventilator circuit of the mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device. Patients were randomized to receive mechanical CPR (TCPR) or human/manual CPR (HCPR) based on an odd/even day basis, with TCPR being performed on odd days. ETCO2 readings were obtained 5 minutes after the initiation of either TCPR or HCPR and again at the initiation of patient transport to the hospital. All patients received standard ACLS pharmacotherapy during the monitoring interval with the exception of sodium bicarbonate. CPR was continued until the patient was delivered to the hospital emergency department. Age, call response interval, initial electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm, scene time, ETCO2 measurements, and arrest outcome were identified for all patients. Twenty patients were entered into the study, with 10 in each treatment group. Three patients in the TCPR group were excluded. Measurements in the HCPR group revealed a decreasing ETCO2 during the resuscitation in 8 of 10 patients (80%) and an increasing ETCO2 in the remaining 2 patients. No decrease in ETCO2 was noted in the TCPR group, with 4 of 7 patients (57%) actually showing an increased reading and 3 of 7 patients (43%) showing a constant ETCO2 reading. The differences in the ETCO2 measurements between TCPR and HCPR groups were statistically significant. Both groups were similar with regards to call response intervals, patient ages, scene times, and initial ECG rhythms. One patient in the TCPR group was admitted to the hospital but later died, leaving no survivors in the study. TCPR appears to be superior to standard HCPR as measured by ETCO2 in maintaining cardiac output during ACLS resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. To compare the effectiveness of manual and mechanical chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 50 patients who suffered cardiac arrest were randomly allocated to receive manual or mechanical chest compression. Randomization was performed after failure of initial resuscitative measures but within ten minutes after the onset of cardiac arrest (mean, 6.4 +/- 1.2 min). Ten patients from each group survived longer than one hour following resuscitation. Three from the mechanical group and two from the manual group were eventually able to leave the hospital. Thus mechanical compression appears comparable with manual compression when manual compression is performed under ideal conditions. Mechanical chest compression may be employed when trained personnel are not readily available or where manual compression is technically difficult to perform. To examine the efficacy of a new method of cardiac resuscitation, active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD CPR), in prehospital cardiac arrest.
                Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
                Physician-manned Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU) of a university hospital, serving a population of 200,000.
                Adult patients with prehospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest treated by the MICU.
                Patients were randomized to standard chest compression according to American Heart Association (AHA) recommendations (group 1, 30 patients) or to the new technique (group 2, 26 patients). ACD was performed by use of a hand-held suction device. In both groups, advanced life support was performed as recommended by the AHA.
                Rate of patients regaining a spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hospital discharge rate, and mean carbon dioxide content during resuscitation were recorded. ROSC rates in groups 1 and 2 were 40% and 38.5%, respectively. Four patients (13.3%) in group 1 and three patients (11.5%) in group 2 were discharged (group 1 v group 2: n.s.). Anatomic conditions precluded the application of ACD CPR in 5 patients. The new technique was found to impose greater physical efforts than STD CPR. Capnography was performed in 23 patients (mean value: STD CPR: 11.9 +/- 4.7 mmHg, ACD CPR: 13.7 +/- 4.9 mmHg [n.s.]).
                ACD CPR did not improve, outcome and practical performance was complicated. Therefore, this technique should not be performed routinely, or without strict supervision in prehospital cardiac arrest. High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may improve both cardiac and brain resuscitation following cardiac arrest. Compared with manual chest compression, an automated load-distributing band (LDB) chest compression device produces greater blood flow to vital organs and may improve resuscitation outcomes.
                To compare resuscitation outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when an automated LDB-CPR device was added to standard emergency medical services (EMS) care with manual CPR.
                Multicenter, randomized trial of patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States and Canada. The a priori primary population was patients with cardiac arrest that was presumed to be of cardiac origin and that had occurred prior to the arrival of EMS personnel. Initial study enrollment varied by site, ranging from late July to mid November 2004; all sites halted study enrollment on March 31, 2005.
                Standard EMS care for cardiac arrest with an LDB-CPR device (n = 554) or manual CPR (n = 517).
                The primary end point was survival to 4 hours after the 911 call. Secondary end points were survival to hospital discharge and neurological status among survivors.
                Following the first planned interim monitoring conducted by an independent data and safety monitoring board, study enrollment was terminated. No difference existed in the primary end point of survival to 4 hours between the manual CPR group and the LDB-CPR group overall (N = 1071; 29.5% vs 28.5%; P = .74) or among the primary study population (n = 767; 24.7% vs 26.4%, respectively; P = .62). However, among the primary population, survival to hospital discharge was 9.9% in the manual CPR group and 5.8% in the LDB-CPR group (P = .06, adjusted for covariates and clustering). A cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge was recorded in 7.5% of patients in the manual CPR group and in 3.1% of the LDB-CPR group (P = .006).
                Use of an automated LDB-CPR device as implemented in this study was associated with worse neurological outcomes and a trend toward worse survival than manual CPR. Device design or implementation strategies require further evaluation.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965.
There is insufficient evidence from human RCTs to conclude that mechanical chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest is associated with benefit or harm. Widespread use of mechanical devices for chest compressions during cardiac is not supported by this review. More RCTs that measure and account for CPR process in both arms are needed to clarify the potential benefit from this intervention.