Abstract Introduction Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) is a cornerstone of emergency response to cardiac arrest. Manual CPR has long been the standard, but is limited by provider fatigue and inconsistency. In contrast, mechanical CPR (mCPR) provides consistent and standardized compressions. However, the effectiveness of mCPR remains a subject of debate. Methods In this narrative review, we compare mCPR 0.05. Conclusions As manual CPR overall demonstrates better long-term neurological outcomes, higher survival rates after hospital admission, and improved 30-day survival, our study highlights the cautious application of mCPR. Further dedicated research is needed to classify patient subgroups and clinical scenarios, enabling the use of mCPR as a standard. This abstract is funded by: None
Rizvi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.