Skip to main content
editorial
. 2023 Mar 21;12(7):e027726. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.027726

Table 1.

Summary of Three Randomized Controlled Trials of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Use in In‐Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Author Year Design Intervention Device Number of cases Primary outcome Results
Couper 2021 Multicenter, feasibility RCT 3:1 Randomization mechanical vs manual CPR Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System 127 patients with IHCA Proportion of eligible participants who were successfully randomized

55% of eligible participants recruited.

No difference when comparing rates of ROSC, survival to discharge, or survival with a good neurological outcome at 6 mo.

Halperin 1993 Single‐center RCT 1:1 Randomization mechanical vs manual CPR Thoracic‐vest system 34 patients with IHCA ROSC ROSC rate higher in mechanical vs manual CPR (47% vs 18%).
Taylor 1978 Single‐center RCT 1:1 Randomization mechanical vs manual CPR Piston‐driven CPR device 30 patients with IHCA 1‐hour survival No difference in 1‐hour survival between mechanical vs manual CPR (38% vs 42%)

CPR indicates cardiopulmonary resuscitation; IHCA, in‐hospital cardiac arrest; RCT, randomized controlled trial; and ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation 12 , 13 , 14