Cargando…
Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
BACKGROUND: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Via Medica
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10508072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34622436 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0115 |
_version_ | 1785107452066267136 |
---|---|
author | Bielski, Karol Smereka, Jacek Chmielewski, Jaroslaw Pruc, Michal Chirico, Francesco Gasecka, Aleksandra Litvinova, Nataliia Jaguszewski, Milosz J. Nowak-Starz, Grazyna afique, Zubaid R Peacock, Frank W. Szarpak, Lukasz |
author_facet | Bielski, Karol Smereka, Jacek Chmielewski, Jaroslaw Pruc, Michal Chirico, Francesco Gasecka, Aleksandra Litvinova, Nataliia Jaguszewski, Milosz J. Nowak-Starz, Grazyna afique, Zubaid R Peacock, Frank W. Szarpak, Lukasz |
author_sort | Bielski, Karol |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the effect of sCPR (30:2) and CCC on resuscitation outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. METHODS: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Using standardized criteria, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration were searched for trials assessing the effect of sCPR vs. CCC on resuscitation outcomes after adult OHCA. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the mean deviation (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge with sCPR was 10.2% compared to 9.3% in the CCC group (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93–1.16; p = 0.46). Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome measured with the cerebral performance category (CPC 1 or 2) was 6.5% for sCPR vs. 5.8% for CCC (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84–1.20; p = 0.98). Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in sCPR and CCC groups was 15.9% and 14.8%, respectively (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91–1.39; p = 0.26). Survival to hospital admission with ROSC occurred in 29.5% of the sCPR group compared to 28.4% in CCC group (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89–1.63; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there were no significant differences in the resuscitation outcomes between the use of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and chest compression only. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10508072 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Via Medica |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105080722023-09-20 Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest Bielski, Karol Smereka, Jacek Chmielewski, Jaroslaw Pruc, Michal Chirico, Francesco Gasecka, Aleksandra Litvinova, Nataliia Jaguszewski, Milosz J. Nowak-Starz, Grazyna afique, Zubaid R Peacock, Frank W. Szarpak, Lukasz Cardiol J Clinical Cardiology BACKGROUND: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the effect of sCPR (30:2) and CCC on resuscitation outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. METHODS: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Using standardized criteria, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration were searched for trials assessing the effect of sCPR vs. CCC on resuscitation outcomes after adult OHCA. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the mean deviation (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge with sCPR was 10.2% compared to 9.3% in the CCC group (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93–1.16; p = 0.46). Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome measured with the cerebral performance category (CPC 1 or 2) was 6.5% for sCPR vs. 5.8% for CCC (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84–1.20; p = 0.98). Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in sCPR and CCC groups was 15.9% and 14.8%, respectively (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91–1.39; p = 0.26). Survival to hospital admission with ROSC occurred in 29.5% of the sCPR group compared to 28.4% in CCC group (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89–1.63; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there were no significant differences in the resuscitation outcomes between the use of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and chest compression only. Via Medica 2023-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10508072/ /pubmed/34622436 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0115 Text en Copyright © 2023 Via Medica https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially |
spellingShingle | Clinical Cardiology Bielski, Karol Smereka, Jacek Chmielewski, Jaroslaw Pruc, Michal Chirico, Francesco Gasecka, Aleksandra Litvinova, Nataliia Jaguszewski, Milosz J. Nowak-Starz, Grazyna afique, Zubaid R Peacock, Frank W. Szarpak, Lukasz Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
title | Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
title_full | Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
title_fullStr | Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
title_full_unstemmed | Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
title_short | Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
title_sort | meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest |
topic | Clinical Cardiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10508072/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34622436 http://dx.doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2021.0115 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bielskikarol metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT smerekajacek metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT chmielewskijaroslaw metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT prucmichal metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT chiricofrancesco metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT gaseckaaleksandra metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT litvinovanataliia metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT jaguszewskimiloszj metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT nowakstarzgrazyna metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT afiquezubaidr metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT peacockfrankw metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest AT szarpaklukasz metaanalysisofchestcompressiononlyversusconventionalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationbybystandersforadultwithoutofhospitalcardiacarrest |