Mechanical Chest Compression Devices at In-hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Overview
Affiliations
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.
Matsushima Y, Shibata T, Shibao K, Yamakawa R, Hayashida M, Yanai T Resusc Plus. 2025; 22:100892.
PMID: 40026714 PMC: 11870220. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100892.
Manual mastery vs. mechanized magic: current opinions on manual vs. mechanical chest compressions.
Crowley C, Salciccioli J, Pocock H, Moskowitz A Curr Opin Crit Care. 2024; 30(6):597-602.
PMID: 39258342 PMC: 11540737. DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001208.
El-Menyar A, Naduvilekandy M, Rizoli S, Di Somma S, Cander B, Galwankar S Crit Care. 2024; 28(1):259.
PMID: 39080740 PMC: 11290300. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-05037-4.
Luo D, Weng Y, Zhang N, Xu B, Zhang H, Wang J Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 24(7):191.
PMID: 39077014 PMC: 11266452. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2407191.
Jaeger D, Kalra R, Sebastian P, Gaisendrees C, Kosmopoulos M, Debaty G Resusc Plus. 2023; 15:100429.
PMID: 37502743 PMC: 10368933. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100429.