This systematic review evaluates AI-driven CPR systems' impact on patient outcomes, suggesting further validation is needed.
Current cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) includes breaks to check rhythm and pulse, while high-quality CPR requires continual chest compressions. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven “closed-loop” or “near-closed-loop” systems may evaluate CPR-contaminated signals, guide shock and pulse decisions. According to PRISMA statement 2020, We searched databases from 2010 to 2025 for studies on animal or human cardiac arrest where AI-based or algorithmic tools gave real-time intended guidance during CPR or CPR-dominant analysis windows. Evidence was divided into animal perfusion-targeted closed-loop CPR, human shock-advisory algorithms, and human pulse/perfusing-rhythm detection. We classified shockable and non-shockable instances using a bivariate random-effects model and meta-analyses. Many studies reported performance on many electrocardiogram segments per episode; therefore, aggregated findings should be taken as segment-level diagnostic performance, not episode-level accuracy. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria: three porcine closed-loop experiments, eight human shock-advisory studies, two pulse-detection studies, and one simulated individualized strategy. Eight shock-advisory studies demonstrated the pooled sensitivity = 0.93 and the specificity = 0.97. There were substantial variation and a high risk of bias in the patient selection and index test domains. Pulse-detection models worked well during clean pauses but not during compressions. Animal controllers enhanced coronary perfusion pressure, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂), or ventricular fibrillation surrogates relative to fixed-depth CPR; however, these effects were transient. AI systems can execute guideline CPR in some datasets, and animal studies confirm perfusion-targeted control’s physiological viability. Closed-loop AI-guided CPR is intriguing yet unvalidated, requiring episode-level clinical studies due to fragmented, varied, and methodologically problematic evidence. PROSPERO CRD420251239485.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghasemi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: