Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more
Authors' conclusion
Given the significant heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included studies and SRs, our findings do not provide definitive evidence to support the superiority of mechanical CPR over manual CPR.
Study context
- Population
- IHCA and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)11 systematic reviews (SRs)
- Comparison
- Mechanical vs manual CPR
- Outcome
- Restore spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission/discharge, 30-day survival, survival with good neurological function
Methodological detailsAMSTAR-2 and GRADE quality assessment, subgroup analyses
- AMSTAR-2 and GRADE quality assessment
- Subgroup analyses
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Pooled findings did not show superiority of mechanical vs manual CPR except in a few selected subgroups
- Most SRs and studies of low to moderate quality
Further pooled results
Use of mechanical CPR by gender and age
- Higher chances of mechanical CPR for male patients (3 studies)
- Younger patients received more mechanical treatment than older (2 studies)
- Outcomes by gender or age not reported
Original publication
Mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): an umbrella review of contemporary systematic reviews and more. Crit Care. Published 30 July 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →