Acute cardiac care & resuscitationCohort study
Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Device Use and Cardiac Arrest Survival in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Agencies
- Observational cohort study with interrupted time series analysis
- registry-based (CARES)
- agency-level
Authors' conclusion
In a large US registry of OHCA, EMS agency rates of favorable neurological survival and survival to discharge were not higher after the initiation of mechanical CPR device use.
Study context
- Population
- OHCA at US EMS agencies with ≥2 years of data before and after first mechanical CPR device use, 2013–201949 agencies introducing devices
- Participants
- 14,110 vs 17,804
- Exposure
- Before vs after introduction of mechanical CPR devices at EMS agencies
- Beforen = 14,110reference
- Aftern = 17,804
- Outcome
- Favorable neurological survival (without severe neurological disability) and survival to discharge
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Favorable neurological survival (agency risk-adjusted rate)
After vs BeforeEstimate (95% CI)P value
model intercept
adjusted OR 0.94(0.80–1.11)
P = 0.48model slope
adjusted OR per year 1.03(0.96–1.12)
P = 0.41Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Mean
| Outcome | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Survival to discharge (agency risk-adjusted rate) | 11.0% (SD 2.2%) | 10.0% (SD 1.0%) |
Survival to discharge (agency risk-adjusted rate)
- No significant change in model intercept or slope after device introduction
Temporal trends at control agencies (51 994 OHCAs, 73 agencies)
- Favorable neurological survival: annual rates 9.6% to 10.6%, no trend
- P for trend = 0.23
- Survival to discharge: annual rates 11.1% to 12.0%, no trend
- P for trend = 0.31
Original publication
Mechanical CPR Device Use and Cardiac Arrest Survival in EMS Agencies. Circulation. Published 18 June 2026. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.126.079272
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it