Compression-only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Mushood Ahmed, Laveeza Fatima, Areeba Ahsan, Hritvik Jain, Rubab Zahra, Muhammad Hamza Asif, Jyoti Jain, Jawad Basit, Raheel Ahmed
{"title":"Compression-only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Mushood Ahmed, Laveeza Fatima, Areeba Ahsan, Hritvik Jain, Rubab Zahra, Muhammad Hamza Asif, Jyoti Jain, Jawad Basit, Raheel Ahmed","doi":"10.1177/02676591241283884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundBystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can improve survival rates in individuals with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Two CPR approaches are commonly utilized, standard (S-CPR) with mouth-to-mouth breathing and compression-only (CO-CPR). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes associated with S-CPR versus CO-CPR in OHCA.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on adult OHCA patients receiving CO-CPR or S-CPR. Forest plots were generated for pooled data analysis using Review Manager version 5.4. Random-effect analyses were used, and statistical significance was set at p < .05.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis, encompassing a total sample size of 4987 patients (2482 in the CO-CPR group and 2505 in the S-CPR group). CO-CPR was associated with significantly improved 1-day survival compared with S-CPR (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02–1.31; p = .03) and survival to hospital discharge (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.01-1.55; p = .04). No heterogeneity was observed among the studies for either outcome.ConclusionCO-CPR emerges as a promising strategy for improving outcomes in OHCA compared to S-CPR. However, further large-scale RCTs are required to generate more robust evidence.","PeriodicalId":519219,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion","volume":"19 1","pages":"2676591241283884"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241283884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundBystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can improve survival rates in individuals with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Two CPR approaches are commonly utilized, standard (S-CPR) with mouth-to-mouth breathing and compression-only (CO-CPR). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes associated with S-CPR versus CO-CPR in OHCA.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on adult OHCA patients receiving CO-CPR or S-CPR. Forest plots were generated for pooled data analysis using Review Manager version 5.4. Random-effect analyses were used, and statistical significance was set at p < .05.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis, encompassing a total sample size of 4987 patients (2482 in the CO-CPR group and 2505 in the S-CPR group). CO-CPR was associated with significantly improved 1-day survival compared with S-CPR (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02–1.31; p = .03) and survival to hospital discharge (OR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.01-1.55; p = .04). No heterogeneity was observed among the studies for either outcome.ConclusionCO-CPR emerges as a promising strategy for improving outcomes in OHCA compared to S-CPR. However, further large-scale RCTs are required to generate more robust evidence.
院外心脏骤停患者单纯按压复苏与标准心肺复苏的比较:随机对照试验荟萃分析
背景旁观者启动心肺复苏(CPR)可提高院外心脏骤停(OHCA)患者的存活率。目前常用的心肺复苏术有两种方法,一种是口对口呼吸的标准心肺复苏术(S-CPR),另一种是纯按压心肺复苏术(CO-CPR)。我们进行了一项系统性综述和荟萃分析,以比较 OHCA 中 S-CPR 与 CO-CPR 的相关临床结果。方法使用 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统性文献检索。符合条件的研究包括针对接受 CO-CPR 或 S-CPR 的成人 OHCA 患者的随机对照试验 (RCT)。使用 Review Manager 5.4 版生成森林图进行汇总数据分析。结果最终分析纳入了四项随机对照试验,总样本量为 4987 例患者(CO-CPR 组 2482 例,S-CPR 组 2505 例)。与 S-CPR 相比,CO-CPR 可显著提高 1 天存活率(OR = 1.15;95% CI:1.02-1.31;p = .03)和出院存活率(OR = 1.25;95% CI:1.01-1.55;p = .04)。结论与 S-CPR 相比,CO-CPR 是一种有希望改善 OHCA 预后的策略。然而,还需要进一步的大规模 RCT 研究来提供更有力的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书