This is an outdated version published on 2024-04-30. Read the most recent version.

Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Is Better Than Manual CPR? Literature Study

Authors

  • Sapondra Wijaya Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7562-0544
  • Susmini Susmini Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang, Indonesia
  • Bambang Soewito Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang, Indonesia
  • Wahyu Dwi Ari Wibowo Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.38040/js.v16i1.946

Abstract

Introduction: Mechanical CPR mitigate rescuer fatigue and ensure adherence to guidelines, potentially enhancing overall survival rates. Contrarily, manual CPR relies on human skill, presenting challenges in maintaining uniformity and endurance. Unveiling the complexities within this juxtaposition becomes imperative in shaping future resuscitative paradigms. The purposeof studi is to determine the effectiveness of mechanical CPR in cardiac arrest management compared to manual CPR

Methods: Database used were Pubmed and Proquest using the keywords "Mechanical CPR", "Automatic CPR Device" and "Cardiac Arrest". The inclusion criteria were last 5 years published, analyzing the effect of automatic CPR devices on cardiac arrest management, as well as full text articles. The inclusion criteria are literature review, systematic review or is not original research. The number of articles eligible for review is 10 journal articles

Results: The use of automatic CPR equipment is still inferior compared to manual CPR during cardiac arrest with the use value being 4-5% of all cardiac arrest patients. There are 4 journals that state that ROSC in cardiac arrest management using automatic CPR devices is higher than manual, but there are 2 journal articles that report the opposite. Automatic CPR device is very vulnerable to injury with fractures reaching 85.5% of total injuries compared to manual CPR which does not experience injury.

Conclusion: The use of automatic CPR device does not produce better results than manual CPR overall for ROSC, but is very useful and meaningful in certain conditions such as during the transportation process, therefore, the automatic CPR device is more meaningful for pre-hospital use

Keywords: Manual CPR; Mechanical CPR; CPR; OHCA    

Author Biographies

Sapondra Wijaya, Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang

     

Susmini Susmini, Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang

   

Bambang Soewito, Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang

  

Wahyu Dwi Ari Wibowo, Poltekkes Kemenkes Palembang

 

References

American Heart Association. (2021). “About Cardiac Arrest.” Retrieved March 29, 2022 (https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cardiac-arrest/about-cardiac-arrest).

Cha, Kyoung Chul, Hyung Il Kim, Yong Won Kim, Gyo Jin Ahn, Yoon Seob Kim, Sun Ju Kim, Jun Hyuk Lee, and Sung Oh Hwang. (2019). “Comparison of Hemodynamic Effects and Resuscitation Outcomes between Automatic Simultaneous Sterno-Thoracic Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Device and LUCAS in a Swine Model of Cardiac Arrest.” PLoS ONE 14(8):1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221965.

Chen, Meng, Yue Wang, Xuan Li, Lina Hou, Yufeng Wang, Jie Liu, and Fei Han. (2017). “Public Knowledge and Attitudes towards Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in China.” BioMed Research International. doi: 10.1155/2017/3250485.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-30

Versions

How to Cite

Wijaya, S., Susmini, S., Soewito, B., & Wibowo, W. D. A. (2024). Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Is Better Than Manual CPR? Literature Study. SURYA: Jurnal Media Komunikasi Ilmu Kesehatan, 16(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.38040/js.v16i1.946

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 1 (2024): VOL 16 NO 01 APRIL 2024

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

  1. The journal allows the author to hold the copyright of the article without restrictions.
  2. The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
  3. The legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY).