Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis

Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with the efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) methods playing a crucial role in patient outcomes. The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mechanical and manual CPR in OHCA, focusing on three outcomes: Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and survival till discharge. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, incorporating 39 studies for ROSC, 28 for survival to admission, and 30 for survival till discharge, totalling 144,430, 130,499 and 162,088 participants, respectively. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach, assessing risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. Statistical analysis included pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and sensitivity analyses. For ROSC, the pooled OR was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.92-1.29), demonstrating no significant difference between mechanical and manual CPR. Survival to admission favoured mechanical CPR with a pooled OR of 1.25 (95% CI: 1.09-1.43). No conclusive difference was found for survival till discharge, with a pooled OR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.61-1.02). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across outcomes. Evidence of potential publication bias was noted, particularly in the survival to admission outcome. The overall quality of evidence was graded as very low, mainly due to high heterogeneity and indirectness of evidence. The study suggests that mechanical CPR may improve short-term outcomes such as survival to admission in patients with OHCA but does not demonstrate a significant long-term survival benefit over manual CPR.

Assessing the Impact of the Pandemic on Treatment Outcomes for Cardiac Arrest Patients Utilizing Mechanical CPR: A Nationwide Population-Based Observational Study in South Korea

INTRODUCTION

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with mechanical devices (MCPR) was developed to provide high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients with cardiac arrest. However, the effect of this procedure on treatment outcomes remains controversial. Nevertheless, during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, in-hospital MCPR gained attention, owing to its advantages such as saving medical staff and preventing infection. This study compared the treatment outcomes of in-hospital MCPR and manual CPR for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective nationwide population-based study was conducted in South Korea. Data were collected from the Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest surveillance database managed by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. We included adult OHCA patients transported by emergency medical services from 2016 to 2021. The study compared outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic years (2020-2021) with the preceding non-pandemic years (2018-2019). The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcomes were good neurological outcome and sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).

RESULTS

The entire study included 72,050 patients with OHCA and, in the multivariable analyses, MCPR was associated with lower survival rates compared to manual CPR (AOR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51-0.77; p < 0.001). Interestingly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, while MCPR use increased, the survival rate did not differ significantly between the MCPR and manual-CPR groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that while MCPR may offer potential benefits, such as decreased infection risk for healthcare workers, it did not demonstrate superior outcomes compared to manual CPR in our study population.

Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more

BACKGROUND

High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can restore spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and neurological function and save lives. We conducted an umbrella review, including previously published systematic reviews (SRs), that compared mechanical and manual CPR; after that, we performed a new SR of the original studies that were not included after the last published SR to provide a panoramic view of the existing evidence on the effectiveness of CPR methods.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline were searched, including English in-hospital (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) SRs, and comparing mechanical versus manual CPR. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and GRADE were used to assess the quality of included SRs/studies. We included both IHCA and OHCA, which compared mechanical and manual CPR. We analyzed at least one of the outcomes of interest, including ROSC, survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, 30-day survival, and survival to hospital discharge with good neurological function. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed for age, gender, initial rhythm, arrest location, and type of CPR devices.

RESULTS

We identified 249 potentially relevant records, of which 238 were excluded. Eleven SRs were analyzed in the Umbrella review (January 2014-March 2022). Furthermore, for a new, additional SR, we identified eight eligible studies (not included in any prior SR) for an in-depth analysis between April 1, 2021, and February 15, 2024. The higher chances of using mechanical CPR for male patients were significantly observed in three studies. Two studies showed that younger patients received more mechanical treatment than older patients. However, studies did not comment on the outcomes based on the patient's gender or age. Most SRs and studies were of low to moderate quality. The pooled findings did not show the superiority of mechanical compared to manual CPR except in a few selected subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the significant heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included studies and SRs, our findings do not provide definitive evidence to support the superiority of mechanical CPR over manual CPR. However, mechanical CPR can serve better where high-quality manual CPR cannot be performed in selected situations.

Effects of glossopharyngeal nerve block on pain control after tonsillectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We investigated the role of perioperative intraoral glossopharyngeal nerve block to minimize postoperative pain in patients undergoing tonsillectomy through a meta-analysis of the relevant literature.

METHODS

We retrieved eight studies from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to August 2023. We compared perioperative glossopharyngeal nerve block with a control group, in order to examine postoperative pain, analgesic use, and other postoperative morbidities.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain was significantly reduced at 1-4 h (SMD -1.26, 95% CI [-2.35; -0.17], I2 = 94.7%, P = 0.02) and 5-8 hours (SMD -1.40, 95% CI [-2.47; -0.34], I2 = 96.1%, p = 0.01) in the treatment groups compared to the control group. However, glossopharyngeal nerve block showed no efficacy in reducing pain or use of analgesic drugs after 12 h compared to the control group. The incidences of postoperative bleeding (OR 0.95, 95% CI [0.35; 2.52], I2 = 0.0%), local agent toxicity (OR 4.14, 95% CI [0.44; 38.63], I2 = 0.0%), nasal problems (OR 1.25, 95% CI [0.60; 2.61], I2 = 0.0%), postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR 1.35, 95% CI [0.78; 2.33], I2 = 0.0%), swallowing difficulty (OR 1.61, 95% CI [0.76; 3.42], I2 = 56.0%), and voice change (OR 3.11, 95% CI [0.31; 30.80], I2 = 0.0%) were not significantly different between the treatment and control groups. The treatment group showed higher prevalence of respiratory problems and dry mouth compared to control without statistical significance, but a significant increase in throat discomfort (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Intraoral glossopharyngeal nerve block for tonsillectomy did not significantly impact postoperative pain management and was associated with some adverse effects with increases in respiratory problems, dry mouth, and throat discomfort compared to controls.

Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices: Evidence Synthesis with an Umbrella Review

AIM

Sudden cardiac arrest is a significant cause of death worldwide. Good quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation increases patients' survival. Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is often ineffective as rescuers may experience physical and mental fatigue. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices are designed to address this issue, providing an automated approach for high-quality resuscitation. In the present comprehensive umbrella review we summarize current evidence on mechanical devices.

METHODS

We searched systematic reviews on mechanical devices in MEDLINE/PubMed. Effect estimates were obtained from original reports, including 95% confidence intervals and p values, when applicable and available, focusing on return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or 30 days, survival with good neurological outcome, and resuscitation-related injuries.

RESULTS

From 21 potentially pertinent publications, we shortlisted 10 reviews, each including between 5 and 22 studies. AutoPulse, LUCAS, and LUCAS-2 were among the investigated devices. Most reviews concluded toward mechanical devices being similar or better than manual resuscitation for return of spontaneous circulation and 30-days survival. Regarding survival with good neurological function, some reviews lacked data, while the remaining ones reported similar results or worse outcomes in patients undergoing mechanical resuscitation. Focusing on resuscitation-related injuries, data were limited or conflicting with one review reporting higher rates of injuries with mechanical devices, and two others suggesting similar outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation appear to be similar in terms of return of spontaneous circulation and short-term survival. Mechanical devices appear to be associated with higher resuscitation-related injuries, while there are conflicting data in terms of survival with good neurological outcomes. A comprehensive and large dedicated randomized trial is urgently needed.

Contradictory Resuscitation Procedure for Cardiopulmonary Arrest

Drawing from a comprehensive Japan-based literature review and the author's personal experience, this article presents findings that highlight potential improvements in clinical outcomes, such as reduced mortality rates, by optimizing the current resuscitation procedure for cardiopulmonary arrest. Many countries have adopted similar procedures for cardiopulmonary arrest. This article presents a prioritized resuscitation method based on scientific evidence, aiming to improve survival rates. The study, which was conducted in Japan, revealed inconsistencies in the current resuscitation procedure for cardiopulmonary arrest. The study did not involve direct participants but relied on literature review for data collection. A literature review was conducted to analyze the survival rates of various resuscitation methods. The interventions reviewed in the literature included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator, and automatic mechanical chest compressions. The survival rate of cardiopulmonary arrest in Japan was found to be low. The results of the literature review suggest that cardiopulmonary resuscitation or automatic mechanical chest compressions should be applied before using an automated external defibrillator. The study emphasizes the need to prioritize resuscitation methods with higher survival rates. This article presents a prioritized resuscitation method based on scientific evidence, aiming to improve survival rates. It is hoped that this new approach will lead to a significant improvement in the survival rates of cardiopulmonary arrest patients.

Real-world comparison between mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, including an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). Healthcare providers are now required to use personal protective equipment (PPE) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Additionally, mechanical CPR devices have been introduced to reduce the number of personnel required for resuscitation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of CPR performed with a mechanical device and the outcomes of manual CPR performed by personnel wearing PPE.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study utilized data from the Korean Cardiac Arrest Research Consortium registry. The study population consisted of OHCA patients who underwent CPR in emergency departments (EDs) between March 2020 and June 2021. Patients were divided into two equal propensity score matched groups: mechanical CPR group (n = 421) and PPE-equipped manual CPR group (n = 421). Primary outcomes included survival rates and favorable neurological outcomes at discharge. Total CPR duration in the ED was also assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences with respect to survival rate at discharge (mechanical CPR: 7.4% vs PPE-equipped manual CPR: 8.3%) or favorable neurological outcomes (3.3% vs. 3.8%, respectively). However, the mechanical CPR group had a longer duration of CPR in the ED compared to the manual CPR group.

CONCLUSION

This study found no significant differences in survival rates and neurological outcomes between mechanical CPR and PPE-equipped manual CPR in the ED setting. However, a longer total CPR duration was observed in the mechanical CPR group. Further research is required to explore the impact of PPE on healthcare providers' performance and fatigue during CPR in the context of the pandemic and beyond.

State of the art post-cardiac arrest care: evolution and future of post cardiac arrest care

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of mortality. In the pre-hospital setting, bystander response with cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of publicly available automated external defibrillators have been associated with improved survival. Early in-hospital treatment still focuses on emergency coronary angiography for selected patients. For patients remaining comatose, temperature control to avoid fever is still recommended, but former hypothermic targets have been abandoned. For patients without spontaneous awakening, the use of a multimodal prognostication model is key. After discharge, follow-up with screening for cognitive and emotional disabilities is recommended. There has been an incredible evolution of research on cardiac arrest. Two decades ago, the largest trials include a few hundred patients. Today, undergoing studies are planning to include 10-20 times as many patients, with improved methodology. This article describes the evolution and perspectives for the future in post-cardiac arrest care.

Use of Mechanical Chest Compression for Resuscitation in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest-Device Matters: A Propensity-Score-Based Match Analysis

BACKGROUND

Devices for mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are recommended when high quality CPR cannot be provided. Different devices are available, but the literature is poor in direct comparison studies. Our aim was to assess whether the type of mechanical chest compressor could affect the probability of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and 30-day survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) patients as compared to manual standard CPR.

METHODS

We considered all OHCAs that occurred from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2022 in seven provinces of the Lombardy region equipped with three different types of mechanical compressor: Autopulse^®(ZOLL Medical, MA), LUCAS^® (Stryker, MI), and Easy Pulse^® (Schiller, Switzerland).

RESULTS

Two groups, 2146 patients each (manual and mechanical CPR), were identified by propensity-score-based random matching. The rates of ROSC (15% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and 30-day survival (6% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) were lower in the mechanical CPR group. After correction for confounders, Autopulse^® [OR 2.1, 95%CI (1.6-2.8), p < 0.001] and LUCAS^® [OR 2.5, 95%CI (1.7-3.6), p < 0.001] significantly increased the probability of ROSC, and Autopulse^® significantly increased the probability of 30-day survival compared to manual CPR [HR 0.9, 95%CI (0.8-0.9), p = 0.005].

CONCLUSION

Mechanical chest compressors could increase the rate of ROSC, especially in case of prolonged resuscitation. The devices were dissimilar, and their different performances could significantly influence patient outcomes. The load-distributing-band device was the only mechanical chest able to favorably affect 30-day survival.

Pediatric Chest Compression Improvement Via Augmented Reality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Feedback in Community General Emergency Departments: A Mixed-Methods Simulation-Based Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Yearly, more than 20,000 children experience a cardiac arrest. High-quality pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is generally challenging for community hospital teams, where pediatric cardiac arrest is infrequent. Current feedback systems are insufficient. Therefore, we developed an augmented reality (AR) CPR feedback system for use in many settings.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate whether AR-CPR improves chest compression (CC) performance in non-pediatric-specialized community emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

We performed an unblinded, randomized, crossover simulation-based study. A convenience sample of community ED nonpediatric nurses and technicians were included. Each participant performed three 2-min cycles of CC during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. Participants were randomized to use AR-CPR in one of three CC cycles. Afterward, participants participated in a qualitative interview to inquire about their experience with AR-CPR.

RESULTS

Of 36 participants, 18 were randomized to AR-CPR in cycle 2 (group A) and 18 were randomized to AR-CPR in cycle 3 (group B). When using AR-CPR, 87-90% (SD 12-13%) of all CCs were in goal range, analyzed as 1-min intervals, compared with 18-21% (SD 30-33%) without feedback (p < 0.001). Analysis of qualitative themes revealed that AR-CPR may be usable without a device orientation, be effective at cognitive offloading, and reduce anxiety around and enhance confidence in the CC delivered.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel CPR feedback system, AR-CPR, significantly changed the CC performance in community hospital non-pediatric-specialized general EDs from 18-21% to 87-90% of CC epochs at goal. This study offers preliminary evidence suggesting AR-CPR improves CC quality in community hospital settings.

Factors Impacting Treatment of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Qualitative Study of Emergency Responders

Background Of the more than 250 000 emergency medical services-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occur each year in the United States, only about 8% survive to hospital discharge with good neurologic function. Treatment for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involves a system of care that includes complex interactions among multiple stakeholders. Understanding the factors inhibiting optimal care is fundamental to improving outcomes. Methods and Results We conducted group interviews with emergency responders including 911 telecommunicators, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and transporting emergency medical services personnel (ie, emergency medical technicians and paramedics) who responded to the same out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incident. We used the American Heart Association System of Care as the framework for our analysis to identify themes and their contributory factors from these interviews. We identified 5 themes under the structure domain, which included workload, equipment, prehospital communication structure, education and competency, and patient attitudes. In the process domain, 5 themes were identified focusing on preparedness, field response and access to patient, on-scene logistics, background information acquisition, and clinical interventions. We identified 3 system themes including emergency responder culture; community support, education, and engagement; and stakeholder relationships. Three continuous quality improvement themes were identified, which included feedback provision, change management, and documentation. Conclusions We identified structure, process, system, and continuous quality improvement themes that may be leveraged to improve outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Interventions or programs amenable to rapid implementation include improving prearrival communication between agencies, appointing patient care and logistical leadership on-scene, interstakeholder team training, and providing more standardized feedback to all responder groups.

Advanced and Invasive Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Techniques as an Adjunct to Advanced Cardiac Life Support

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous promising innovations, the chance of survival from sudden cardiac arrest has remained virtually unchanged for decades. Recently, technological advances have been made, user-friendly portable devices have been developed, and advanced invasive procedures have been described that could improve this unsatisfactory situation.

METHODS

A selective literature search in the core databases with a focus on randomized controlled trials and guidelines.

RESULTS

Technical aids, such as feedback systems or automated mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices, can improve chest compression quality. The latter, as well as extracorporeal CPR, might serve as a bridge to treatment (with extracorporeal CPR even as a bridge to recovery). Sonography may be used to improve thoracic compressions on the one hand and to rule out potentially reversible causes of cardiac arrest on the other. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta might enhance myocardial and cerebral perfusion. Minithoracostomy, pericardiocentesis, or clamshell thoracotomy might resolve reversible causes of cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

It is crucial to identify those patients who may benefit from an advanced or invasive procedure and make the decision to implement the intervention in a timely manner. As with all infrequently performed procedures, sound education and regular training are paramount.

The Viability of Using Remote Controlled Mechanical Chest Compression Devices to Reduce Contamination in Cardiac Arrest Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices play an important role in assisting patients undergoing cardiac arrest. However, this equipment induces an aerosol-generating procedure that could contaminate hospital staff. The development of a remote control system for mechanical chest compression devices may solve the problem; however, there are currently no studies regarding the efficacy of this system. AIM: This study aims to analyze efficacy of remote control systems for mechanical chest compression devices and compare it with non-remote control systems. METHODS: This was an analytical cross-sectional study at Srinagarind Hospital, Thailand. Data were collected in two periods of the study. The first period was between January and December 2021 using a non-remote control system to operate the mechanical chest compression device. The second period was from January to April 2022 and collected data on the use of a remote control system. RESULTS: Sixty-four participants were examined over the 16-month period of the study. A total of 53.1% (n = 34) of participants were male and the mean age of the patients was 52.4 ± 5.1 years old. The number of emergency medical service members (EMS) needed for resuscitation in the remote control group was less than the non-remote control group (3 vs. 5; p = 0.040). The number of emergency department (ED) members needed for resuscitation in the remote control group was four compared with eight in the non-remote control group. CONCLUSIONS: The remote controlled mechanical chest compression device can effectively reduce the number of staff working both in the EMS and in the ED of the hospital, thus reducing exposure and contamination from aerosol-generating procedure. It was also proven accurate in terms of rate and depth of chest compression according to resuscitation guidelines.