Is a mechanical-assist device better than manual chest compression? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chest compression quality is a determinant of survival from sudden cardiac arrest. The CPR RsQ Assist Device (CPR RAD) is a new cardiopulmonary resuscitation device for chest compression. It is operated manually but it does not pull up on the chest on the up stroke. The aim of this study was to compare the CPR RAD with standard manual compression in terms of chest compression quality in a manikin model.

METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to either the device or manual chest compression group. Each participant performed a maximum of 4 minutes of hands-only compression with or without the device. During chest compression, the following quality parameters from the manikin were recorded: compression rate, compression depth, and correctness of hand position.

RESULTS: Duration of chest compression was significantly higher in device users compared with manual compression (223.93±36.53 vs 179.67±50.81 seconds; P <0.001). The mean compression depth did not differ in a statistically significant way between manual compression and device at 2 minutes (56.42±6.42 vs 54.25±5.32; P =0.052). During the first and second minutes, compression rate was higher in cases of standard compression (133.21±15.95 vs 108±9.45; P <0.001 and 127.41±27.77 vs 108.5±9.93; P <0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of participants who employed compression that was too shallow or exhibited incorrect hand position.

CONCLUSION: The CPR RAD is more effective in chest compression compared with manual chest compression, as using the device led to better results in terms of fatigue reduction and correct compression rate than standard manual compression.