ReviewResuscitation2018
Efficacy and safety of mechanical versus manual compression in cardiac arrest - A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Review in Resuscitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of the Thumper Device for Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Mechanical chest compression increases intrathoracic hemorrhage complications in patients receiving extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Post-resuscitation pneumothorax: retrospective analysis of incidence, risk factors and outcome-relevance.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Physiology-Guided Resuscitation: Monitoring and Augmenting Perfusion during Cardiopulmonary Arrest.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Traumatic injuries after manual and automatic mechanical compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a retrospective cohort study.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- Use of Mechanical Chest Compression for Resuscitation in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest-Device Matters: A Propensity-Score-Based Match Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in "hostile" environments: Using automated compression devices to minimize the rescuers' danger.World journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Pneumothorax in a Thiel cadaver model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Mathematical Model of Blood Circulation with Compression of the Prototype's Mechanical CPR Waveform.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Prognostic Impact of In-Hospital Use of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices Compared with Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Nationwide Population-Based Observational Study in South Korea.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Observational
- Computed Tomography Imaging in Simulated Ongoing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: No Need to Switch Off the Chest Compression Device during Image Acquisition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Computed Tomographic Findings of Injuries After Mechanical and Manual Resuscitation: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2021Article
- Article
- [Adult advanced life support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Comparison of in-hospital use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: AUTOPULSE vs LUCAS.Medicine · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare relative efficacy and safety of mechanical compression devices (AutoPulse and LUCAS) with manual compression in patients with cardiac arrest undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
methodsFor this Bayesian network meta-analysis, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Inception- 31 October 2017). For all the outcomes, median estimate of odds ratio (OR) from the posterior distribution with corresponding 95% credible interval (Cr I) was calculated. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modeling was used to estimate the relative ranking probability of each intervention based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
resultsIn analysis of 12, 908 patients with cardiac arrest [AutoPulse (2, 608 patients); LUCAS (3, 308 patients) and manual compression (6, 992 patients)], manual compression improved survival at 30 days or hospital discharge (OR, 1.40, 95% Cr I, 1.09-1.94), and neurological recovery (OR, 1.51, 95% Cr I, 1.06-2.39) compared to AutoPulse. There were no differences between LUCAS and AutoPulse with regards to survival to hospital admission, neurological recovery or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Manual compression reduced the risk of pneumothorax (OR, 0.56, 95% Cr I, 0.33-0.97); while, both manual compression (OR, 0.15, 95% Cr I, 0.01-0.73) and LUCAS (OR, 0.07, 95% Cr I, 0.00-0.43) reduced the risk of hematoma formation compared to AutoPulse. Probability analysis ranked manual compression as the most effective treatment for improving survival at 30 days or hospital discharge (SUCRA, 84%).
conclusionsManual compression is more effective than AutoPulse and comparable to LUCAS in improving survival at 30 days or hospital discharge and neurological recovery. Manual compression had lesser risk of pneumothorax or hematoma formation compared to AutoPulse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.