External Cardiac Compression: A Randomized Comparison of Mechanical and Manual Techniques

George J. Taylor, Richard Rubin, Michael Tucker, H. Leon Greene, Michael T. Rudikoff, Myron L. Weisfeldt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

56 Scopus citations


To compare the effectiveness of manual and mechanical chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 50 patients who suffered cardiac arrest were randomly allocated to receive manual or mechanical chest compression. Randomization was performed after failure of initial resuscitative measures but within ten minutes after the onset of cardiac arrest (mean, 6.4 ±1.2 min). Ten patients from each group survived longer than one hour following resuscitation. Three from the mechanical group and two from the manual group were eventually able to leave the hospital. Thus mechanical compression appears comparable with manual compression when manual compression is performed under ideal conditions. Mechanical chest compression may be employed when trained personnel are not readily available or where manual compression is technically difficult to perform.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)644-646
Number of pages3
JournalJAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Issue number7
StatePublished - Aug 18 1978

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'External Cardiac Compression: A Randomized Comparison of Mechanical and Manual Techniques'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this