ABSTRACT
Objective:To evaluate the outcome of the patients receiving dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-CPR) delivered by first-responders who witnessed the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) before the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrived.Methods:We performed a search of the relevant literature exploring major scientific databases. We assessed the quality of the included cohort study according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Meta-analysis was performed on three outcome indicators (recovery of spontaneous circulation survival to hospital discharge and survival with favourable neurologic outcome) using the Revman5.3 software.Results:A total of 21 studies with 349 822 patients were selected for the meta-analysis, including 182 125 patients in the DA-CPR group and 167 697 in the CPR-only group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the DA-CPR and CPR-only groups in ROSC [ RR=1.10, 95% confidence interval ( CI): 0.94-1.29, P=0.24], survival to hospital discharge ( RR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.90-1.34, P=0.34) and survival with favourable neurologic outcome ( RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.79-1.28, P=0.97) of the patients in America, Japan and Korea. However, there was a significant difference between the DA-CPR and the CPR-only groups in ROSC ( RR=2.61, 95% CI:1.53-4.46, P=0.0005), survival to hospital discharge( RR=6.08, 95% CI: 1.84-20.04, P=0.003), and survival with favourable neurologic outcome( RR=9.76, 95% CI: 1.87-51.02, P=0.007) of the patients in China. Conclusions:The overall effect of DA-CPR is significantly different for each country. In detail, DA-CPR offers a survival advantage (Return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge and survival with favourable neurologic outcome) over CPR alone in China but no advantage in developed countries.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To evaluate the effect of mechanical chest compression device in patients with cardiac arrest.Methods:The relevant literatures about mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation were systematically searched from China Knowledge Network (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, Web of Science and other databases. The effective data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan5.3 software.Results:A total of 20 clinical studies involving 29 727 patients were included, of which 11 104 patients received mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 18 623 patients received traditional manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The results of meta-analysis showed that mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation could not effectively improve the restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, admission survival rate, discharge survival rate and neurological prognosis in patients with cardiac arrest compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. ROSC occurrence rate ( RR=1.10, 95% CI: 0.99-1.23, P<0.01), admission survival rate ( RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.95-1.08, P=0.67), discharge survival rate ( RR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.86-1.15, P=0.14), and good neurological function rate ( RR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.61-1.06, P=0.69) showed no significant differences between the mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Conclusions:Mechanical chest compression device has no advantage compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation is not recommended to completely replace manual chest compression in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.