PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions.
METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments.
RESULTS: There were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.
METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments.
RESULTS: There were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.
摘要：
背景：院外心脏骤停是一种危及生命的疾病，需要立即干预以增加生存前景。对这类病人进行心肺复苏的方法多种多样,通过手动胸部按压或机械胸部按压。因此，我们进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以调查这些干预措施之间的差异.
方法：PubMed，科克伦图书馆,和Scopus从成立到2023年5月进行了探索。此外,检索了相关研究的参考书目。随机对照试验的偏差工具的Cochrane风险，纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表，并利用非随机研究中的偏倚风险-I工具进行质量和偏倚风险评估.
结果：这项定量合成包括24项研究，共有111,681名心脏骤停患者。总的来说,在自发循环的恢复之间没有观察到统计学上的显着差异，存活到出院，短期生存,和长期生存。然而,手动胸部按压与神经系统预后的有利性显著相关(OR:1.41;95%CI:1.07,1.84;P=0.01).
结论：尽管策略之间没有重大差异，在机械胸外按压中观察到的复苏后神经系统结局较差,这表明需要在当前一系列机械装置中进行进一步创新和改进.然而,为了得出有效的结论，未来的高质量研究是必要的。
方法：PubMed，科克伦图书馆,和Scopus从成立到2023年5月进行了探索。此外,检索了相关研究的参考书目。随机对照试验的偏差工具的Cochrane风险，纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表，并利用非随机研究中的偏倚风险-I工具进行质量和偏倚风险评估.
结果：这项定量合成包括24项研究，共有111,681名心脏骤停患者。总的来说,在自发循环的恢复之间没有观察到统计学上的显着差异，存活到出院，短期生存,和长期生存。然而,手动胸部按压与神经系统预后的有利性显著相关(OR:1.41;95%CI:1.07,1.84;P=0.01).
结论：尽管策略之间没有重大差异，在机械胸外按压中观察到的复苏后神经系统结局较差,这表明需要在当前一系列机械装置中进行进一步创新和改进.然而,为了得出有效的结论，未来的高质量研究是必要的。
