Abstract
Aim:
To summarise the evidence in relation to the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic review of studies which compared the effect of the use of a mechanical chest compression device with manual chest compressions in adults that sustained an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Critical outcomes were survival with good neurological outcome, survival at hospital discharge or 30-days, and short-term survival (ROSC/1-h survival). Important outcomes included physiological outcomes. We synthesised results in a random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. Evidence quality in relation to each outcome was assessed using the GRADE system.
Data sources:
Studies were identified using electronic databases searches (Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), forward and backward citation searching, and review of reference lists of manufacturer documentation.
Results:
Eight papers, containing nine studies [689 participants], were included. Three studies were randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses showed an association between use of mechanical chest compression device and improved hospital or 30-day survival (odds ratio 2.34, 95% CI 1.42–3.85) and short-term survival (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.11–4.13). There was also evidence of improvements in physiological outcomes. Overall evidence quality in relation to all outcomes was very low.
Conclusions:
Mechanical chest compression devices may improve patient outcome, when used at in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the quality of current evidence is very low. There is a need for randomised trials to evaluate the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest.
To summarise the evidence in relation to the routine use of mechanical chest compression devices during resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic review of studies which compared the effect of the use of a mechanical chest compression device with manual chest compressions in adults that sustained an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Critical outcomes were survival with good neurological outcome, survival at hospital discharge or 30-days, and short-term survival (ROSC/1-h survival). Important outcomes included physiological outcomes. We synthesised results in a random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. Evidence quality in relation to each outcome was assessed using the GRADE system.
Data sources:
Studies were identified using electronic databases searches (Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), forward and backward citation searching, and review of reference lists of manufacturer documentation.
Results:
Eight papers, containing nine studies [689 participants], were included. Three studies were randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses showed an association between use of mechanical chest compression device and improved hospital or 30-day survival (odds ratio 2.34, 95% CI 1.42–3.85) and short-term survival (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.11–4.13). There was also evidence of improvements in physiological outcomes. Overall evidence quality in relation to all outcomes was very low.
Conclusions:
Mechanical chest compression devices may improve patient outcome, when used at in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the quality of current evidence is very low. There is a need for randomised trials to evaluate the effect of mechanical chest compression devices on survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 24-31 |
Journal | Resuscitation |
Volume | 103 |
Early online date | 11 Mar 2016 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2016 |
Keywords
- Cardiac arrest
- In-hospital cardiac arrest
- Advanced life support
- Mechanical chest compression device