Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33392525›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2020

Metrics of mechanical chest compression device use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Michael Levy, Karl B Kern, Dana Yost, Fred W Chapman, Bjarne Madsen Hardig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Metrics of mechanical chest compression device use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael LevyAnchorage Fire Department University of Alaska Anchorage College of Health WWAMI School of Medical Education Anchorage Alaska USA.
Karl B KernUniversity of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA.
Dana YostResurgent Biomedical Consulting Lake Stevens Washington USA.
Fred W ChapmanPhysio-Control now a part of Stryker Redmond Washington USA.
Bjarne Madsen HardigDepartment of Cardiology, Specialized Medicine Helsingborg Hospital Helsingborg Sweden.
Lund University · SEStryker (United States) · USUniversity of Alaska Anchorage · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) affects outcomes from cardiac arrest, yet manual CPR is difficult to administer. Although mechanical CPR (mCPR) devices offer high quality CPR, only limited data describe their deployment, their interaction with standard manual CPR (sCPR), and the consequent effects on chest compression continuity and patient outcomes. We sought to describe the interaction between sCPR and mCPR and the impact of the sCPR-mCPR transition upon outcomes in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

methodsWe analyzed all adult ventricular fibrillation OHCA treated by the Anchorage Fire Department (AFD) during calendar year 2016. AFD protocols include the immediate initiation of sCPR upon rescuer arrival and transition to mCPR, guided by patient status. We compared CPR timing, performance, and outcomes between those receiving sCPR only and those receiving sCPR transitioning to mCPR (sCPR + mCPR).

resultsAll 19 sCPR-only patients achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after a median of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-5.1) minutes. Among 30 patients remaining pulseless after sCPR (median 6.9 [5.3-11.0] minutes), transition to mCPR occurred with a median chest compression interruption of 7 (5-13) seconds. Twenty-one of 30 sCPR + mCPR patients achieved ROSC after a median of 11.2 (5.7-23.8) additional minutes of mCPR. Survival differed between groups: sCPR only 14/19 (74%) versus sCPR + mCPR 13/30 (43%),

conclusionIn this series, transition to mCPR occurred in patients unresponsive to initial sCPR with only brief interruptions in chest compressions. Assessment of mCPR must consider the interactions with sCPR.

Indexed as

cardiac arrestcardiopulmonary resuscitationmechanical CPRresuscitation

Identifiers

PMID33392525
PMCPMC7771774
OpenAlexW3038839592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.