Table 2. Overview of relevant publications for the AutoPulse device.

First authors	Year	Study design	Objectives	Results	Conclusion
Halperin (36)	2004	Animal testing	Determine a potential hemodynamic improvement of CPR with a LDB compared to manual CPR	Improved myocardial flow, cerebral flow, aortic pressure and cardiac perfusion pressure with AutoPulse	AutoPulse better than manual CPR
Casner (37)	2005	Retrospective case control; matched cases	Primary endpoint: patient arrival at emergency department with measurable pulse	Improved outcome for primary endpoint with AutoPulse especially with non-shockable rhythm	AutoPulse better than manual CPR
Hallstrom (38)	2006	Multicenter randomized trial	Primary endpoint: 4-h survival; secondary endpoint: survival to hospital discharge/neurological status among survivors	No significant difference for primary endpoint; lower rate of hospital discharge and significant impaired neurological status in LDB group	Worse neurological outcome and trend towards worse survival in the LDB group; study was terminated
Ong (39)	2006	Phased observational cohort evaluation	Primary endpoint: ROSC; secondary endpoints: survival to hospital admission, hospital discharge, neurological outcome	Improved rates of ROSC and survival with LDB-CPR; no significant difference in neurological outcome	AutoPulse better than manual CPR with regard to survival
Wik (40)	2014	Multicenter randomized trial	Primary endpoint: survival to hospital discharge; secondary endpoint: sustained ROSC, 24-h survival, neurological outcome	No significant difference for primary and secondary endpoint	Equivalent survival between AutoPulse and manual CPR

CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; LDB, load-distributing band; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation.