University of Warwick, UK.
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2010 Jun;16(3):203-10. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328339cf59.
It is recognized that the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an important predictor of outcome from cardiac arrest yet studies consistently demonstrate that the quality of CPR performed in real life is frequently sub-optimal. Mechanical chest-compression devices provide an alternative to manual CPR. This review will consider the evidence and current indications for the use of these devices.
Physiological and animal data suggest that mechanical chest-compression devices are more effective than manual CPR. However, there is no high quality evidence showing improved outcomes in humans. There are specific circumstances where it may not be possible to perform manual CPR effectively for example, during ambulance transport to hospital, en-route to and during cardiac catheterization, prior to organ donation and during diagnostic imaging where using these devices may be advantageous.
There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of mechanical chest-compression devices. There may be specific circumstances when CPR is difficult or impossible where mechanical devices may play an important role in maintaining circulation. There is an urgent need for definitive clinical and cost effectiveness trials to confirm or refute the place of mechanical chest-compression devices during resuscitation.
心肺复苏（CPR）的质量是心脏骤停后转归的重要预测因素，但研究一致表明，在现实生活中进行的 CPR 质量往往并不理想。机械胸外按压设备为手动 CPR 提供了替代方法。这篇综述将考虑这些设备使用的证据和目前的适应证。
生理学和动物数据表明，机械胸外按压设备比手动 CPR 更有效。然而，没有高质量的证据表明在人类中改善了结局。在某些特定情况下，可能无法有效地进行手动 CPR，例如在救护车运往医院的途中、在进行心导管插入术的途中和期间、在器官捐献前以及在进行诊断性影像学检查时，使用这些设备可能会有优势。
没有足够的证据推荐常规使用机械胸外按压设备。在某些 CPR 困难或不可能的情况下，机械设备可能在维持循环方面发挥重要作用。迫切需要进行明确的临床和成本效益试验，以确认或反驳在复苏过程中使用机械胸外按压设备的地位。
