Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30601816›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Application of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation devices and their value in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective analysis of the German Resuscitation Registry.

Stephan Seewald, Manuel Obermaier, Rolf Lefering, Andreas Bohn, Michael Georgieff, Claus-Martin Muth, Jan-Thorsten Gräsner, Siobhán Masterson, Jens Scholz, Jan Wnent

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephan SeewaldInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Schleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Manuel ObermaierDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0881-4757
Rolf LeferingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0141-1747
Andreas BohnCity of Muenster, Fire Department, Muenster, Germany.
Michael GeorgieffDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Claus-Martin MuthSection of Emergency Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany.
Jan-Thorsten GräsnerInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Schleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Siobhán MastersonDiscipline of General Practice, National University of Ireland Galway, Newcastle, Galway, Ireland.
Jens ScholzSchleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Kiel, Germany.
Jan WnentInstitute for Emergency Medicine and Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Schleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8685-858X
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEHeidelberg University · DEOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiac arrest is an event with a limited prognosis which has not substantially changed since the first description of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in 1960. A promising new treatment approach may be mechanical CPR devices (mechanical CPR).

methodsIn a retrospective analysis of the German Resuscitation Registry between 2007-2014, we examined the outcome after using mechanical CPR on return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We compared mechanical CPR to manual CPR. According to preclinical risk factors, we calculated the predicted ROSC-after-cardiac-arrest (RACA) score for each group and compared it to the rate of ROSC observed. Using multivariate analysis, we adjusted the influence of the devices' application on ROSC for epidemiological factors and therapeutic measures.

resultsWe included 19,609 patients in the study. ROSC was achieved in 51.5% of the mechanical CPR group (95%-CI 48.2-54.8%, ROSC expected 42.5%) and in 41.2% in the manual CPR group (95%-CI 40.4-41.9%, ROSC expected 39.2%). After multivariate adjustment, mechanical CPR was found to be an independent predictor of ROSC (OR 1.77; 95%-CI 1.48-2.12). Duration of CPR is a key determinant for achieving ROSC.

conclusionsMechanical CPR was associated with an increased rate of ROSC and when adjusted for risk factors appeared advantageous over manual CPR. Mechanical CPR devices may increase survival and should be considered in particular circumstances according to a physicians' decision, especially during prolonged resuscitation.

Indexed as

RegistriesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCardiopulmonary ResuscitationFemaleGermanyHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30601816
PMCPMC6314607
OpenAlexW2908359584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.