A Comparison Review of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Vs Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Abstract

Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving intervention performed by healthcare workers in the event of cardiac arrest. In recent years, many mechanical devices have been developed to perform quality compressions in place of manual chest compressions in an attempt to sustain quality CPR, as the rescuer will tire, and CPR quality will diminish. With the rise of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices (LUCAS, Zoll AutoPulse) making mechanical CPR a realistic and practical treatment option, it now must be determined whether or not mechanical CPR leads to better outcomes in patients that have been successfully resuscitated in comparison to patients having been resuscitated by manual compressions, as is seen in traditional CPR. Purpose: The purpose of the review was to compare long-term outcomes of patients receiving mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus manual chest compressions. Method: This is a systematic review of the nursing-focused literature regarding the complications and long-term outcomes of patients receiving both manual and mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This review examined evidence-based studies of both methods to compare findings. Findings: This review found achievement of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), complications, and chest compression quality, that pertained to the outcomes of patients following cardiac arrest. No significant difference was noted in the outcomes. Conclusion: At this time, mechanical CPR has more benefit to the team of rescuers than to the patient receiving CPR, as it reduces the number of people needed to make resuscitation efforts and reduces loss of compression quality from fatigued rescuers. However, mechanical CPR was not found to have better patient outcomes when compared to manual CPR in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.