Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


  • Tom Quinn
  • Charles D. Deakin
  • Laura Blair
  • Keith Couper
  • Gavin D. Perkins

Colleges, School and Institutes


Aim: To summarise the evidence from randomised controlled trials of mechanical chest compression devices used during resuscitation after out of hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: Systematic 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 sources: Studies were identified by searches of electronic databases, reference lists of other studies and review articles. Results: Five 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). Conclusions: Existing 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.


Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)91-97
Number of pages7
Early online date17 Jul 2015
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2015


  • AutoPulse, Cardiac arrest, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, LUCAS, Mechanical chest compression