SynthesisMedicine2019
Mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device does not improve clinical outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Observational
- Feasibility and safety of automated chest compression during helicopter rescue with hoisting.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Acute clinical adverse events associated with the LUCAS chest compression system.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Manual Chest Compression versus Automated Chest Compression Device during Day-Time and Night-Time Resuscitation Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Retrospective Historical Control Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
- 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
- Standardized post-resuscitation damage assessment of two mechanical chest compression devices: a prospective randomized large animal trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Early mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation can improve outcomes in patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest in the emergency department.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Observational
- Computed Tomographic Findings of Injuries After Mechanical and Manual Resuscitation: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2021Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Implementation of High-Performance Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Differences between manual CPR and corpuls cpr in regard to quality and outcome: study protocol of the comparing observational multi-center prospective registry study on resuscitation (COMPRESS).Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- Article
- [Adult advanced life support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- Cardiac arrest: An interdisciplinary scoping review of the literature from 2019.Resuscitation plus · 2020Article
- Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac arrest (CA) is a serious threat to human health. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective treatment for CA. Early and high-quality CPR is closely related to the survival rate of patients with CA. But manual chest compression has a lot of defects. To solve the defects and improve the quality of CPR, mechanical CPR device was invented. However, it has still controversy whether manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression is better. This systematic review was aimed to investigate the difference in clinical outcomes between manual chest compression and Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) assisted CPR in patients with out-hospital CA.
methodsOriginal research studies, conducted on adult out-of-hospital CA, were included. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang database were searched from the setting to February 21, 2019. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was selected as effect scale index for evaluation of the difference in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, and survival to 30 days. Random effects model was used in this study to estimate overall mean effects.
resultsA total of 6 articles, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, were selected. And 8501 subjects were involved to analyze the clinical outcomes of LUCAS and manual chest compression for patients with out-hospital CA. Comparisons of ROSC (33.3% vs 33.0%, P = .98; OR = 1; 95% CI: [0.89,1.13]), survival to hospital admission (22.7% vs 24.3%, P = .32; OR = 0.86; 95% CI: [0.65,1.15]), survival to hospital discharge (8.6% vs 10.7%, P = .50; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]), and survival to 30 days (7.5% vs 8.5%, P = .50; OR = 0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]) were made. No significant difference was found.
conclusionThe synthesis of available evidence does not support that mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device improves clinical outcome in out-of-hospital CA patients compared with manual chest compression. Large scale studies with improved designs are still needed in the future.
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.