Contributor: Aaron Lessen, MD
- Mechanical CPR (machine assisted compression devices) remains a hot topic of debate in emergency medicine
- Machine assisted CPR has been advocated to provide more consistent compressions in cardiac arrest and free up staff for other tasks.
- However, multiple studies have shown mechanical CPR provides no significant survival benefit yet increased rates of injury to the chest and abdomen from the devices.
- Unless a clear benefit can be found, mechanical CPR devices should not routinely replace traditional CPR in most situations
- For prolonged transport as well as resource-limited settings, these devices still may provide the only option for sustained resuscitations
Bonnes, J. et al. Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus CPR Including a Mechanical Chest Compression Device in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis From Randomized and Observational Studies. Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):349-360.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.023. Epub 2015 Nov 19.
Wang, P. Brooks, S. Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compressions for Cardiac Arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 20;8(8):CD007260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub4.
Summarized by Jackson Roos, MS4 | Edited by Erik Verzemnieks, MD