Evaluating the efficacy and safety of Thumper device for cardiac arrest:
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background:Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a major rescue
measure for cardiac arrest (CA) patients, and chest compression is the
key of CPR. The Thumper devices has been invented to solve the
deficiency of manual compression.However, current randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) provide controversial findings. Objectives: This
meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical benefits of using the
Thumper devices with manual chest compressions during the provision of
CPR of patients in CA. Methods: Relevant studies were retrieved from the
Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane, CNKI etc.,electronic
databases and by manually searching the reference lists of research and
review articles. All RCTs published in either English or Chinese until
June 31, 2020, were included in the meta-analysis. The odds ratios (ORs)
and their 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) for the return of
spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival rate (SR), and the incidence of
rib fractures (RFs) were compared between the manual and Thumper chest
compressions. Results: A total of 2164 records were identified, of which
16 were RCTs with an overall risk of bias ranging from low to medium
classification.Following CPR, the hazard ratios for ROSC, SR, and RF
were significantly better for the Thumper chest compression with ORs of
2.56, (95%CI 2.11-3.11, I2=0%), 4.06, (95%CI 2.77-5.93, I2=0%), and
0.24 (95%CI 0.14-0.41, I2=0%), respectively. Conclusions: The Thumper
compression device improved the ROSC, SR and decreased the incidence of
RFs in CA patients when compared with manual chest compression. Its use
is, therefore, recommended during the resuscitation of CA patients.