Abstract

Background and Objectives: This study analyzed the prognostic impact of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, in comparison to manual CPR. Materials and Methods: This study was a nationwide population-based observational study in South Korea. Data were retrospectively collected from 142,905 OHCA patients using the South Korean Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Surveillance database. We included adult OHCA patients who received manual or mechanical CPR in the emergency room. The primary outcome was survival at discharge and the secondary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Statistical analysis included propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 19,045 manual CPR and 1125 mechanical CPR cases (671 AutoPulseTM vs. 305 ThumperTM vs. 149 LUCASTM) were included. In the matched multivariate analyses, all mechanical CPR devices were associated with a lower ROSC than that of manual CPR. AutoPulseTM was associated with lower survival in the multivariate analysis after matching (aOR with 95% CI: 0.57 (0.33–0.96)), but the other mechanical CPR devices were associated with similar survival to discharge as that of manual CPR. Witnessed arrest was commonly associated with high ROSC, but the use of mechanical CPR devices and cardiac origin arrest were associated with low ROSC. Only target temperature management was the common predictor for high survival. Conclusions: The mechanical CPR devices largely led to similar survival to discharge as that of manual CPR in OHCA patients; however, the in-hospital use of the AutoPulseTM device for mechanical CPR may significantly lower survival compared to manual CPR.

Highlights

  • Through recent bioengineering developments and its expansion to various medical fields, advanced medical equipment are being used to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)

  • AutoPulseTM is characterized by chest compression (CC) performed by a compression band, and ThumperTM is characterized by CC performed by oxygen or air pressure

  • In the multivariate analysis of matched cases, mechanical CPR with AutoPulseTM and cardiac origin arrest showed a low sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (aOR with 95% CI: 0.74 (0.58–0.93) and 0.38 (0.26–0.57), respectively)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Through recent bioengineering developments and its expansion to various medical fields, advanced medical equipment are being used to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Mechanical CPR devices perform automatic chest compression (CC) for cardiac arrest patients [3]. The ThumperTM device (Thumper Model 1007CCMII Mechanical CPR System, Michigan instruments Inc., Grand Rapids, MI, USA) performs CC using the driving force generated by compressed oxygen with one connecting arm from the backboard [8]. AutoPulseTM was associated with lower survival in the multivariate analysis after matching (aOR with 95% CI: 0.57 (0.33–0.96)), but the other mechanical CPR devices were associated with similar survival to discharge as that of manual CPR. Conclusions: The mechanical CPR devices largely led to similar survival to discharge as that of manual CPR in OHCA patients; the in-hospital use of the AutoPulseTM device for mechanical CPR may significantly lower survival compared to manual CPR

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call