Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices: Evidence Synthesis with an Umbrella Review.

ABSTRACT

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.