• Users Online: 3110
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 83-88

Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients


1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Faculty of Medicine; Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara City Hospital; Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara (old), Turkey
2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara (old); Department of Emergency Medicine, Bartın State Hospital, Bartın, Turkey
3 Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara City Hospital; Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara (old); Department of Emergency Medicine, Bartın State Hospital, Bartın, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alp Sener
Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Faculty of Medicine (new), Ministry of Health, Ankara City Hospital (new), Ankara Ataturk Training and Research Hospital (old), Bilkent, Ankara
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2452-2473.342808

Rights and Permissions

OBJECTIVE: Mechanical chest compression (CC) devices are frequently used in in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings. In this study, mechanical and manual CC in in-hospital cardiac arrest was compared in terms of survival. METHODS: Adult patients who were admitted to the emergency department (ED) for 2 years period and had cardiac arrest in the ED were included in this retrospective, observational study. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 7-day and 30-day survival and hospital discharge data were compared between the two groups of patients who underwent manual CC and those who had mechanical CC with the Lund University Cardiac Assist System-2 device. RESULTS: Although the rate of ROSC in the mechanical CC group was lower than in the manual CC group, this difference was not statistically significant (41.7% vs. 50.4%; P = 0.133). The 7-day survival rate was found to be statistically significantly higher in the mechanical CC group (19.4% vs. 8.9%; P = 0.012). The 30-day survival rate was also found to be high in the mechanical CC group, but this difference was not statistically significant (10.6% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.339). CONCLUSION: In the light of these results, we can say that the use of piston-based mechanical CC devices in ED may be beneficial. More reliable results can be obtained with a prospective study to be performed in the ED.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed716    
    Printed18    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal