Comparison of The Effect on Survival of Cardiopulmonary Resusitation Applied with Manual or Mechanical Compression Device

Objective In this study, our aim was to compare the effectiveness of mechanical CPR device (The Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System – LUCAS 2) and manual CPR in terms of survival in cases of diagnosed prolonged cardiac arrest. Materials and methods This study was designed as a retrospective, cross-sectional study. It includes patients over the age of 18 who underwent Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) due to non-traumatic cardiac arrest during follow-up and treatment in our emergency department between January 2016 and June 2021. Results Of the 245 cases included in the study, 161 (65.7%) were male and the mean age was 67.3 ± 17.2 years. Mechanical CPR was applied to 55.5% of the cases and manual chest compression was applied to 44.5%. ROSC was calculated as 62.5% in mechanical CPR and 37.5% in manual CPR and was found to be higher (p < 0.001). The mean CPR duration in both groups was above the cut-off (29 minutes) determined by ROC analysis for mortality predictivity. Neurological survival at discharge did not differ between the groups according to Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). In the univariate model, CPR type (manually) and CPR duration showed significant differences in the regression analysis for mortality. In the multivariate model, age, CPR type (manual) and CPR duration showed significant differences in the regression analysis in terms of mortality (p < 0.001, p < 0.001 and p < 0.004) (Odds Ratio1 = 1.054, OR2 = 6.376, OR3 = 1.049). Conclusion CPR success is similar when using a mechanical device (LUCAS2) compared to effective manual compressions in prolonged CPR.