Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Objective: The objective was to conduct an analysis of literature that examined whether the use of mechanical vs. manual chest compressions results in outcomes (e.g. quality of CPR, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), neurologic outcome, survival) that are significantly increased or decreased in adults that experienced out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods: Systematic searches were conducted through the James Madison University Library. The inclusion criteria included human adults that experienced out of hospital cardiac arrest that were treated by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) with and/or without a mechanical chest compression device. Results: A statistically significant difference was not found between the manual chest compression study arm and the automated chest compression study arm. Conclusion: Because P-values were not statistically significant, when comparing manual to automated chest compressions, the researchers were unable to confidently state recommendations. However, there was moderate clinical significance for improved outcome with manual chest compressions.
Hubble A, Kalhorn J, Tansey E. Manual vs. mechanical chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JMU Scholarly Commons Physician Assistant Capstones. http://commons.lib.jmu.edu/pacapstones/13/. Published August 1, 2016.