This review of five trials investigating the efficacy of mechanical CPR devices (the LUCAS & AutoPulse) concluded that the devices demonstrate no outcome advantage compared with manual CPR, in terms of 30 day survival, survival to discharge, or neurological outcome.

summary

• Simon Gates, Tom Quinn, Charles D Deakin, Laura Blair, Keith Couper, and Gavin D Perkins.
• Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: s.gates@warwick.ac.uk.
• Resuscitation. 2015 Sep 1; 94: 91-7.

AimTo summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.MethodsSystematic review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of mechanical chest compression. We included randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised trials that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression for adult patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival of event, overall survival, survival with good neurological outcome. Results were combined using random-effects meta-analysis.Data SourcesStudies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles.ResultsFive trials were included, of which three evaluated the LUCAS or LUCAS-2 device and two evaluated the AutoPulse device. The results did not show an advantage to the use of mechanical chest compression devices for survival to discharge/30 days (average OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77, 1.02) and survival with good neurological outcome (average OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53, 1.11).ConclusionsExisting studies do not suggest that mechanical chest compression devices are superior to manual chest compression, when used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest.Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.

13 keywords...

hide…