Abstract 8941: Efficacy and Safety of Mechanical versus Manual Compression in Cardiac Arrest and Cardiogenic Shock Patients

Introduction: Mechanical chest compression (MCC) provides consistent pressure and timing of each chest compression in line with latest evidenced-based practice. However, there has few evidence about the effectiveness of the mechanical device compared with manual chest compression. Furthermore, few studies focused on cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest related to heart disease. Hypothesis: The aim in this study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of resuscitation strategies using MCC versus resuscitation strategies using standard manual chest compressions in patients with out of hospital cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest due to heart disease. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of comparing the outcomes of mechanical and manual chest compressions at our hospital. A total of 69 consecutive patients with out of hospital cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest were enrolled between April 2014 and May 2018. 39 patients of them received only manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 30 utilized a mechanical CPR device (LUCAS® Lund University Cardiac Arrest System, USA) during the resuscitation. Baseline characteristics, resuscitation details, and outcomes were compared between patients who received manual (manual group) and mechanical compressions (MCC group). Results: There was no significant difference in age, gender, the rate of bystander CPR, and arterial blood gases at baseline. No differences were found for the rate of ROSC and 30-day survival between two groups (manual group 42.8% vs MCC group 50.1% p=0.13). However, MCC group had significantly higher rate of bleeding events than manual group. In addition, fifty-four patients of them were treated for cardiac arrest or refractory cardiogenic shock with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Among patients underwent VA-ECMO, the rate of 30-day survival was significantly lower in MCC group. (manual group 26.8% vs MCC group 39.1% p=0.014). Conclusions: This study showed that mechanical chest compression in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock increased bleeding events than manual chest compression. Furthermore, in the patients underwent ECMO, the use of mechanical chest compression might be associated with higher mortality.