Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: A multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT)

Manual mastery vs. mechanized magic: current opinions on manual vs. mechanical chest compressions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mechanical chest compression devices are increasingly deployed during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We discuss the data supporting the use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest and provide an opinion about the future of the technology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple randomized trials investigating the use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have not demonstrated improved outcomes. There is little prospective evidence to support the use of mechanical chest compression devices in other settings. Data from observational studies do not support the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices for in-hospital cardiac arrest, but there may be a role for mechanical chest compressions for cardiac arrest in procedural areas and cardiac arrest prior to cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

SUMMARY

Mechanical chest compression devices offer a solution to some of the human limiting factors of resuscitation, but have failed to demonstrate meaningful improvement in outcomes from cardiac arrest. Routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during cardiac arrest is not supported by evidence.

Association between sub-phenotypes identified using latent class analysis and neurological outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Japan

BACKGROUND

In patients who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), it is important to assess the association of sub-phenotypes identified by latent class analysis (LCA) using pre-hospital prognostic factors and factors measurable immediately after hospital arrival with neurological outcomes at 30 days, which would aid in making treatment decisions.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed data obtained from the Japanese OHCA registry between June 2014 and December 2019. The registry included a complete set of data on adult patients with OHCA, which was used in the LCA. The association between the sub-phenotypes and 30-day survival with favorable neurological outcomes was investigated. Furthermore, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by multivariate logistic regression analysis using in-hospital data as covariates.

RESULTS

A total of, 22,261 adult patients who experienced OHCA were classified into three sub-phenotypes. The factor with the highest discriminative power upon patient's arrival was Glasgow Coma Scale followed by partial pressure of oxygen. Thirty-day survival with favorable neurological outcome as the primary outcome was evident in 66.0% participants in Group 1, 5.2% in Group 2, and 0.5% in Group 3. The 30-day survival rates were 80.6%, 11.8%, and 1.3% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the ORs (95% CI) for 30-day survival with favorable neurological outcomes were 137.1 (99.4-192.2) for Group 1 and 4.59 (3.46-6.23) for Group 2 in comparison to Group 3. For 30-day survival, the ORs (95%CI) were 161.7 (124.2-212.1) for Group 1 and 5.78 (4.78-7.04) for Group 2, compared to Group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified three sub-phenotypes based on the prognostic factors available immediately after hospital arrival that could predict neurological outcomes and be useful in determining the treatment strategy of patients experiencing OHCA upon their arrival at the hospital.

Liver Hemorrhage Following Mechanical CPR With the Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) Device: A Focused Case Report

Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of mortality globally, and mechanical CPR devices like the LUCAS system are designed to improve outcomes by enhancing consistency and reducing rescuer fatigue. However, this case report of a 76-year-old female who suffered cardiac arrest post-flight reveals significant complications associated with mechanical CPR. Despite achieving initial resuscitation, she developed extensive liver damage and additional complications, which ultimately led to her death. This case underscores the importance of precise training and strict adherence to guidelines when using mechanical CPR devices. It highlights that while these devices offer potential benefits, they also pose risks, especially for vulnerable patients, necessitating careful consideration and ongoing evaluation to optimize safety and effectiveness.

The association between mechanical CPR and outcomes from in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational cohort study

AIM

We sought to investigate the relationship between mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during in-hospital cardiac arrest and survival to hospital discharge.

METHODS

Utilizing the prospectively collected American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines database, we performed an observational study. Data from 153 institutions across the United States were reviewed with a total of 351,125 patients suffering cardiac arrest between 2011 and 2019 were screened. After excluding patients with cardiac arrests lasting less than 5 minutes, and patients who had incomplete data, a total of 111,143 patients were included. Our primary exposure was mechanical vs. manual CPR, and the primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Multivariate logistic regression models and propensity weighted analyses were used.

RESULTS

11.8% of patients who received mechanical CPR survived to hospital discharge versus 16.9% in the manual CPR group. Patients who received mechanical CPR had a lower probability of survival to discharge compared to patients who received manual CPR (OR 0.66 95% CI 0.58-0.75; p < 0.001). This association persisted with multi-variable adjustment (OR 0.57 95% CI 0.46-0.70, p < 0.0001) and propensity weighted analysis (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.44-0 0.92, p < 0.0001). Mechanical CPR was associated with decrease likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation after multivariate adjustment (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.76; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical CPR was associated with a decreased likelihood of survival to hospital discharge and ROSC compared to manual CPR. This finding should be interpreted within the context of important limitations of this study and randomized trials are needed to better investigate this relationship.

Optimal chest compression for cardiac arrest until the establishment of ECPR: Secondary analysis of the SAVE-J II study

INTRODUCTION

The widespread incorporation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires the delivery of effective and high-quality chest compressions prior to the initiation of ECPR. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of mechanical and manual chest compressions until the initiation of ECPR.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of the Japanese retrospective multicenter registry "Study of Advanced Life Support for Ventricular Fibrillation by Extracorporeal Circulation II (SAVE-J II)". Patients were divided into two groups, one receiving mechanical chest compressions and the other receiving manual chest compressions. The primary outcome measure was mortality at hospital discharge, while the secondary outcome was the cerebral performance category (CPC) score at discharge.

RESULTS

Of the 2157 patients enrolled in the SAVE-J II trial, 453 patients (329 in the manual compression group and 124 in the mechanical compression group) were included in the final analysis. Univariate analysis showed a significantly higher mortality rate at hospital discharge in the mechanical compression group compared to the manual compression group (odds ratio [95% CI] = 2.32 [1.34-4.02], p = 0.0026). Multivariate analysis showed that mechanical chest compressions were an independent factor associated with increased mortality at hospital discharge (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI] = 2.00 [1.11-3.58], p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in CPC between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest who require ECPR, extreme caution should be used when performing mechanical chest compressions.

Trend of Outcome Metrics in Recent Out-of-Hospital-Cardiac-Arrest Research: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) research traditionally focuses on survival. In 2018, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) proposed more patient-centered outcomes. Our narrative review assessed clinical trials after 2018 to identify the trends of outcome metrics in the field OHCA research. We performed a search of the PubMed database from 1 January 2019 to 22 September 2023. Prospective clinical trials involving adult humans were eligible. Studies that did not report any patient-related outcomes or were not available in full-text or English language were excluded. The articles were assessed for demographic information and primary and secondary outcomes. We included 89 studies for analysis. For the primary outcome, 31 (35%) studies assessed neurocognitive functions, and 27 (30%) used survival. For secondary outcomes, neurocognitive function was present in 20 (22%) studies, and survival was present in 10 (11%) studies. Twenty-six (29%) studies used both survival and neurocognitive function. Since the publication of the COSCA guidelines in 2018, there has been an increased focus on neurologic outcomes. Although survival outcomes are used frequently, we observed a trend toward fewer studies with ROSC as a primary outcome. There were no quality-of-life assessments, suggesting a need for more studies with patient-centered outcomes that can inform the guidelines for cardiac-arrest management.

A Review of CPR Augmentation Devices

The study aims to assess cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) outcomes in cardiac arrest patients when using CPR augmentation devices, such as the ZOLL ResQCPR system (Chelmsford, MA) or its components ResQPUMP and ResQPOD, which are manual active compression-decompression (ACD) device and impedance threshold device (ITD), respectively. The analysis included a Google Scholar-based literature review that took place between January 2015 and March 2023 and included recent publications with PubMed IDs or widely cited articles to assess the effectiveness of the ResQPUMP and ResQPOD or similar devices. This review also includes studies quoted by ZOLL, but those were not considered in our conclusion since the authors were employed by ZOLL. We found that in a study on human cadavers, the force of decompression increased the chest compliance of the chest wall by 30%-50% (p<0.05). Essentially, active compression-decompression improved the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) with meaningful neurologic outcomes by 50% in a blinded, randomized, and controlled human trial (n=1,653; p<0.02). The main study on the ResQPOD had a controversial human data pool with one randomized and controlled study arguing for no significant difference with or without the device (n=8,718; p=0.71). However, a post hoc analysis and the reorganization of the data by CPR quality demonstrated significance (n decreased to 2,799, reported in odds ratio without specific p-values). In conclusion to the limited number of studies presented, any manual ACD device is a great alternative to standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation regarding survivability with good neurologic function and should be utilized in prehospital emergency medical services and hospital emergency departments. ITDs are still controversial but promising with more future data.

Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in "hostile" environments: Using automated compression devices to minimize the rescuers' danger

Mechanical automated compression devices are being used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation instead of manual, "hands-on", rescuer-delivered chest compressions. The -theoretical- advantages include high-quality non-stop compressions, thus freeing the rescuer performing the compressions and additionally the ability of the rescuer to stand reasonably away from a potentially "hazardous" victim, or from hazardous and/or difficult resuscitation conditions. Such circumstances involve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, especially directly under the fluoroscopy panel, where radiation is well known to cause detrimental effects to the rescuer, and CPR during/after land or air transportation of cardiac arrest victims. Lastly, CPR in a coronavirus disease 2019 patient/ward, where the danger of contamination and further serious illness of the health provider is very existent. The scope of this review is to review and present literature and current guidelines regarding the use of mechanical compressions in these "hostile" and dangerous settings, while comparing them to manual compressions.

Resuscitation highlights in 2021

BACKGROUND

This review is the latest in a series of regular annual reviews undertaken by the editors and aims to highlight some of the key papers published in Resuscitation during 2021.

METHODS

Hand-searching by the editors of all papers published in Resuscitation during 2021. Papers were selected based on then general interest and novelty and were categorised into themes.

RESULTS

98 papers were selected for brief mention.

CONCLUSIONS

Resuscitation science continues to evolve and incorporates all links in the chain of survival.

Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients

OBJECTIVE:

Mechanical chest compression (CC) devices are frequently used in in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings. In this study, mechanical and manual CC in in-hospital cardiac arrest was compared in terms of survival.

METHODS:

Adult patients who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) for 2 years period and had cardiac arrest in the ED were included in this retrospective, observational study. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 7-day and 30-day survival and hospital discharge data were compared between the two groups of patients who underwent manual CC and those who had mechanical CC with the Lund University Cardiac Assist System-2 device.

RESULTS:

Although the rate of ROSC in the mechanical CC group was lower than in the manual CC group, this difference was not statistically significant (41.7% vs. 50.4%; P = 0.133). The 7-day survival rate was found to be statistically significantly higher in the mechanical CC group (19.4% vs. 8.9%; P = 0.012). The 30-day survival rate was also found to be high in the mechanical CC group, but this difference was not statistically significant (10.6% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.339).

CONCLUSION:

In the light of these results, we can say that the use of piston-based mechanical CC devices in ED may be beneficial. More reliable results can be obtained with a prospective study to be performed in the ED.

Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Introduction

Our goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods

We searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000–October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting.

Results

A total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates’ summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance.

Conclusion

Mechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.

The role of automated compression devices in out-of- and in- hospital cardiac arrest. Can we spare rescuers’ hands?

Research regarding the use of mechanical compressions in the setting of a cardiac arrest, either outside of or inside the hospital environment has produced mixed results. The debate whether they can replace manual compressions still remains. The aim of this review is to present current literature contemplating the application of mechanical compressions in both settings, data comparing them to manual compressions as well as current guidelines regarding their implementation in everyday clinical use. Currently, their implementation in the resuscitation protocol seems to benefit the victims of an in-hospital cardiac arrest rather than the victims that sustain a cardiac arrest outside of the hospital.