Abstract

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a common scenario facing prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) professionals and nearly always involves either manual or mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Mechanical CPR devices are expensive and prior clinical trials have not provided evidence of benefit for patients when compared with manual CPR. To investigate the use of mechanical CPR in the prehospital setting and determine whether patient demographic characteristics or geographical location is associated with its use. A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using the 2010 through 2016 National Emergency Medical Services Information System data. Participants included all patients identified by EMS professionals as having out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Use of CPR, categorized as manual or mechanical. From 2010 to 2016, 892 022 patients (38.6% female, 60.4% male, missing for 1%; mean [SD] age, 61.1 [20.5] years) with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were identified by EMS professionals. Overall, manual CPR was used for 618 171 patients (69.3%) and mechanical CPR was used for 45 493 patients (5.1%). The risk-standardized rate of mechanical CPR use, accounting for patient demographic and geographical characteristics, rose from 1.9% in 2010 to 8.0% in 2016 (P < .001). In multivariable analyses, use of mechanical CPR devices was increasingly likely over time among patients identified with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated by EMS professionals, increasing from an adjusted odds ratio of 1.58 (95% CI, 1.42-1.77; P < .001) when comparing 2011 with 2010, to an adjusted odds ratio of 11.32 (95% CI, 10.22-12.54; P < .001) when comparing 2016 with 2010. In addition, several other patient demographic and geographical characteristics were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving mechanical CPR, including being 65 years or older, being male, being Hispanic, as well as receiving treatment in the Northeast Census Region, in a suburban location, or in a zip code with a median annual income greater than $20 000. Mechanical CPR device use increased more than 4-fold among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated by EMS professionals. Given the high costs of mechanical CPR devices, better evidence is needed to determine whether these devices improve clinically meaningful outcomes for patients treated for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by prehospital EMS professionals to justify the significant increase in their use.

Highlights

  • Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices came to market in the mid-1960s as a tool to provide consistent chest compressions during treatment for cardiac arrest

  • Use of mechanical CPR devices was increasingly likely over time among patients identified with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated by emergency medical services (EMS) professionals, increasing from an adjusted odds ratio of 1.58 when comparing 2011 with 2010, to an adjusted odds ratio of 11.32 when comparing 2016 with 2010

  • Given the high costs of mechanical CPR devices, better evidence is needed to determine whether these devices improve clinically meaningful outcomes for patients treated for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by prehospital EMS professionals to justify the significant increase in their use

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices came to market in the mid-1960s as a tool to provide consistent chest compressions during treatment for cardiac arrest. Initial mechanical CPR devices were often cumbersome, later generations of devices slowly became portable and suitable for use outside of hospital settings. With this evolution, between 1976 and 2018, approximately 40 models of mechanical CPR devices were cleared for use by the US Food and Drug Administration through the 510(k) premarket notification pathway. Data from a statewide, prospectively collected cardiac arrest registry did provide some suggestion of clinical benefit associated with mechanical CPR devices.[7]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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