学术急诊医学档案

卷 14 编号 1 (2026)

Mechanical versus Manual Chest Compressions for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Emergency Department: A Comparative Study

学术急诊医学档案, 卷 14 编号 1 (2026), 1 十月 2025 , 第 e3 页
https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v13i1.2849

摘要

Introduction: Mechanical chest compression devices provide consistent depth and reduced pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but their clinical impact on routine practice in emergency department (ED) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of mechanical versus manual compressions among adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest managed in ED.

Methods: A single-center, comparative study of consecutive adult cardiac arrests in the ED (n = 372) was carried out. Patients were allocated by time period to either manual CPR (n = 195) during the retrospective phase (September 2024 to January 2025) or mechanical CPR (n = 177) with LUCAS-3 during the prospective phase (January to June 2025). The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were survival at 6 hours and 24 hours post-arrest. Baseline differences were summarized with standardized mean differences, and survival was described with Kaplan-Meier curves (0-24 h). Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) for ROSC and 6-hour survival.

Results: Mechanical and manual chest compression groups comprised 177 and 195 patients, respectively. Unadjusted outcomes favored mechanical CPR. ROSC occurred in 54 (30.5%) versus 32 (16.4%), with an absolute risk difference of 14.1% and Six-hour survival was 25 (14.1%) versus 5 (2.6%). After adjustment, mechanical CPR remained associated with higher odds of ROSC (OR = 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-4.42) and 6-hour survival (OR = 6.71, 95% CI: 2.94-18.94). By 24 hours, no patient survived in the mechanical group, whereas one patient (0.5) survived in the manual group (P>0.05). Kaplan-Meier curves showed early separation that narrowed by 24 hours.

Conclusion: It seems that mechanical chest compression during CPR is associated with increased ROSC and better early survival, compared to manual compression. Due to the limited sample size, non-randomized design with time-based allocation, single-center setting, potential residual confounding, and absence of neurologic outcomes, these results should be interpreted with caution.

关键词:
  • Heart Arrest
  • Emergency Service, Hospital
  • Survival Rate
  • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

参考

1. Olasveengen TM, Semeraro F, Ristagno G, Castren M, Handley A, Kuzovlev A, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Basic Life Support. Resuscitation. 2021;161:98-114.

2. Panchal AR, Bartos JA, Cabanas JG, Donnino MW, Drennan IR, Hirsch KG, et al. Part 3: Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020;142(16_suppl_2):S366-S468.

3. Soar J, Bottiger BW, Carli P, Couper K, Deakin CD, Djarv T, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation. 2021;161:115-51.

4. Couper K, Yeung J, Nicholson T, Quinn T, Lall R, Perkins GD. Mechanical chest compression devices at in-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2016;103:24-31.

5. El-Menyar A, Naduvilekandy M, Rizoli S, Di Somma S, Cander B, Galwankar S, et al. Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):259.

6. Perkins GD, Lall R, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Cooke MW, Horton J, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9972):947-55.

7. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, Ostlund O, Silfverstolpe J, Lichtveld RA, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(1):53-61.

8. Larik MO, Ahmed A, Shiraz MI, Shiraz SA, Anjum MU, Bhattarai P. Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024;103(8):e37294.

9. Zhu X, Fu J. Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2024;28(6):458.

10. Gao Y, Sun T, Yuan D, Liang H, Wan Y, Yuan B, et al. Safety of mechanical and manual chest compressions in cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2021;169:124-35.

11. Crowley C, Salciccioli J, Wang W, Tamura T, Kim EY, Moskowitz A, et al. The association between mechanical CPR and outcomes from in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational cohort study. Resuscitation. 2024;198:110142.

12. Sener A, Gunaydin GP, Tanriverdi F, Ozhasenekler A, Gokhan S, Celik GK, et al. Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2022;22(2):83-8.

13. Li H, Wang D, Yu Y, Zhao X, Jing X. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24:10.

14. Wang PL, Brooks SC. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD007260.

15. Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, Sorebo H, Svensson L, Fellows B, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2005;293(3):299-304.

16. Sugerman NT, Edelson DP, Leary M, Weidman EK, Herzberg DL, Vanden Hoek TL, et al. Rescuer fatigue during actual in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with audiovisual feedback: a prospective multicenter study. Resuscitation. 2009;80(9):981-4.

17. Magliocca A, Olivari D, De Giorgio D, Zani D, Manfredi M, Boccardo A, et al. LUCAS Versus Manual Chest Compression During Ambulance Transport: A Hemodynamic Study in a Porcine Model of Cardiac Arrest. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(1):e011189.

  • 摘要 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.viewed##: 299 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.times##
  • pdf (English) ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.downloaded##: 254 ##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.times##

##plugins.themes.ojsPlusA.frontend.article.downloadstatastics##

##plugins.block.makeSubmission.linkLabel##

##plugins.block.makeSubmission.linkLabel##

SJR

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

COPE

最新一期

消息