Effectiveness of Mechanical Active Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ACD-CPR): A Meta-Analysis

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/243310
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Effectiveness of Mechanical Active Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ACD-CPR): A Meta-Analysis
Author(s):
Huang, Mei-Chin; Wang, Yu-Xuan; Fang, Yueh-Yen
Author Details:
Huang, Mei-Chin, BSN, RN, 800078@ms.kmuh.org.tw; Wang, Yu-Xuan, BSN, RN; Fang, Yueh-Yen, PhD, RN;
Abstract:
Purpose: The purposes of this study were to examine the effectiveness of mechanical ACD-CPR and factors that might impede study quality of mechanical ACD-CPR research. 

Methods: A meta-analysis with random-effects model was conducted to answer the research questions. The pooled estimate provided an odds ratio of the survival rate based on the comparison between the mechanical ACD-CPR and the manual CPR. Five English and three Chinese databases were used to search English and Chinese literature published up to April, 2011. The search term used was ‘mechanical and manual and CPR.’ Research articles that provided comparisons on human survival rate between mechanical and manual CPR were included for analysis. Data were extracted by two researchers independently. Disagreement among data extraction was resolved by complete consensus between researchers. Study quality was evaluated by the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based practice Quality Rating Scale. 

Results: From 2724 citations, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two nonrandomized controlled trials (NRCT) met the inclusion criteria. The total subjects involved in the analysis were 1669 patients. Study quality of included studies ranged from IA to IIA. Results showed there was no survival rate difference between mechanical and manual CPR (WES = 1.22, 95% CI = .93-1.59). Studies presented consistent distributions among study outcomes (Q = 10.07, p = .26) and between RCT and NRCT designs (QB = .09, p = .76). 

Conclusion: The meta-analysis supported that mechanical and manual CPR provided same survival chance. However, included studies did not control or record the time between cardiac arrest and CPR. The survival rate may also be influenced by the disease severity. It is suggested that future studies provide a better control and report of these two issues. Based on the current evidence, mechanical ACD-CPR is suggested to be a considerable method for replacing manual CPR.

Keywords:
CPR; Mechanical Compression; cardiac arrest
Repository Posting Date:
12-Sep-2012
Date of Publication:
12-Sep-2012
Conference Date:
2012
Conference Name:
23rd International Nursing Research Congress
Conference Host:
Sigma Theta Tau International, the Honor Society of Nursing
Conference Location:
Brisbane, Australia

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_GB
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleEffectiveness of Mechanical Active Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ACD-CPR): A Meta-Analysisen_GB
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Mei-Chinen_GB
dc.contributor.authorWang, Yu-Xuanen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFang, Yueh-Yenen_GB
dc.author.detailsHuang, Mei-Chin, BSN, RN, 800078@ms.kmuh.org.tw; Wang, Yu-Xuan, BSN, RN; Fang, Yueh-Yen, PhD, RN;en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/243310-
dc.description.abstract<b>Purpose: </b>The purposes of this study were to examine the effectiveness of mechanical ACD-CPR and factors that might impede study quality of mechanical ACD-CPR research.&nbsp; <p><b>Methods: </b>A meta-analysis with random-effects model was conducted to answer the research questions. The pooled estimate provided an odds ratio of the survival rate based on the comparison between the mechanical ACD-CPR and the manual CPR. Five English and three Chinese databases were used to search English and Chinese literature published up to April, 2011. The search term used was &lsquo;mechanical and manual and CPR.&rsquo; Research articles that provided comparisons on human survival rate between mechanical and manual CPR were included for analysis. Data were extracted by two researchers independently. Disagreement among data extraction was resolved by complete consensus between researchers. Study quality was evaluated by the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based practice Quality Rating Scale.&nbsp; <p><b>Results: </b>From 2724 citations, seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two nonrandomized controlled trials (NRCT) met the inclusion criteria. The total subjects involved in the analysis were 1669 patients. Study quality of included studies ranged from IA to IIA. Results showed there was no survival rate difference between mechanical and manual CPR (WES = 1.22, 95% CI = .93-1.59). Studies presented consistent distributions among study outcomes (Q = 10.07, <i>p</i> = .26) and between RCT and NRCT designs (Q<sub>B </sub>= .09, <i>p</i> = .76).&nbsp; <p><b>Conclusion: </b>The meta-analysis supported that mechanical and manual CPR provided same survival chance. However, included studies did not control or record the time between cardiac arrest and CPR. The survival rate may also be influenced by the disease severity. It is suggested that future studies provide a better control and report of these two issues. Based on the current evidence, mechanical ACD-CPR is suggested to be a considerable method for replacing manual CPR.en_GB
dc.subjectCPRen_GB
dc.subjectMechanical Compressionen_GB
dc.subjectcardiac arresten_GB
dc.date.available2012-09-12T09:20:28Z-
dc.date.issued2012-09-12-
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-12T09:20:28Z-
dc.conference.date2012en_GB
dc.conference.name23rd International Nursing Research Congressen_GB
dc.conference.hostSigma Theta Tau International, the Honor Society of Nursingen_GB
dc.conference.locationBrisbane, Australiaen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.