Wrapping up a series of 5 episodes, Dr Jarvis finishes his discussion of mechanical CPR devices (MCDs) talking about papers from Utah, Vienna, Anchorage, and Cincinnati and then gives his take on how to interpret the literature and put it into practice.

Papers discussed:

1)    Youngquist ST, Ockerse P, Hartsell S, Stratford C, Taillac P: Mechanical chest compression devices are associated with poor neurological survival in a statewide registry: A propensity score analysis. Resuscitation. 2016;September;106:102–7.

2)    Zeiner S, Sulzgruber P, Datler P, Keferböck M, Poppe M, Lobmeyr E, Van Tulder R, Zajicek A, Buchinger A, Polz K, et al.: Mechanical chest compression does not seem to improve outcome after out-of hospital cardiac arrest. A single center observational trial. Resuscitation. 2015;November;96:220–5.

3)    Levy M, Yost D, Walker RG, Scheunemann E, Mendive SR: A quality improvement initiative to optimize use of a mechanical chest compression device within a high-performance CPR approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;July;92:32–7.

4)    Morgan S, Gray JJ, Sams W, Uhl K, Gundrum M, McMullan J: LUCAS Device Use Associated with Prolonged Pauses during Application and Long Chest Compression Intervals. Prehospital Emergency Care. 2023;March 9;28(1):114–7.

5)    Grunau B, Reynolds J, Scheuermeyer F, Stenstom R, Stub D, Pennington S, Cheskes S, Ramanathan K, Christenson J: Relationship between Time-to-ROSC and Survival in Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest ECPR Candidates: When is the Best Time to Consider Transport to Hospital? Prehospital Emergency Care. 2016;September 2;20(5):615–22.