Conventional versus hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for pediatrics with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Małgorzata Kietlińska, Artur Krawczyk, Grzegorz Witkowski, Michał Pruc, Monika Tomaszewska, Krzysztof Kurek, Murat Yildirim, Gabriella Nucera, Marek Solecki, Julia M Umińska, Alla Navolokina, Łukasz Szarpak, Basar Cander
{"title":"Conventional versus hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for pediatrics with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Małgorzata Kietlińska, Artur Krawczyk, Grzegorz Witkowski, Michał Pruc, Monika Tomaszewska, Krzysztof Kurek, Murat Yildirim, Gabriella Nucera, Marek Solecki, Julia M Umińska, Alla Navolokina, Łukasz Szarpak, Basar Cander","doi":"10.5603/cj.104135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in pediatric populations is a rare yet critical medical emergency characterized by high mortality and significant neurological impairment among survivors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesize existing evidence on pediatric resuscitation techniques, focusing on survival rates, neurological outcomes, and the effectiveness of chest compression-only resuscitation (HCPR) versus standard resuscitation (CCPR), thereby addressing current gaps in clinical understanding and informing future guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for trials comparing HCPR versus CCPR during pediatric resuscitation. We used a comparative meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratio of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-month survival rate, and survival with favorable neurological outcome. Study level odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using random effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prehospital ROSC incidence did not significantly differ between HCPR and CCPR, including subgroup analysis based on cause of cardiac arrest. One-month survival rate was 12.3% in HCPR and 18.0% in CCPR (p = 0.04). Additionally, HCPR was less effective in non-cardiac arrest cases and in children over one year of age. Favorable neurological outcomes at one month were also lower for HCPR (6.3%) compared to CCPR (9.0%; p < 0.001), with similar trends observed across subgroups of non-cardiac arrest origin and varying age groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A pediatric resuscitation technique based solely on chest compressions shows lower efficacy in terms of survival at one month and quality of return of neurological function compared to standard resuscitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93923,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.104135","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

Background: Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in pediatric populations is a rare yet critical medical emergency characterized by high mortality and significant neurological impairment among survivors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to synthesize existing evidence on pediatric resuscitation techniques, focusing on survival rates, neurological outcomes, and the effectiveness of chest compression-only resuscitation (HCPR) versus standard resuscitation (CCPR), thereby addressing current gaps in clinical understanding and informing future guidelines.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for trials comparing HCPR versus CCPR during pediatric resuscitation. We used a comparative meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratio of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 1-month survival rate, and survival with favorable neurological outcome. Study level odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using random effects.

Results: Prehospital ROSC incidence did not significantly differ between HCPR and CCPR, including subgroup analysis based on cause of cardiac arrest. One-month survival rate was 12.3% in HCPR and 18.0% in CCPR (p = 0.04). Additionally, HCPR was less effective in non-cardiac arrest cases and in children over one year of age. Favorable neurological outcomes at one month were also lower for HCPR (6.3%) compared to CCPR (9.0%; p < 0.001), with similar trends observed across subgroups of non-cardiac arrest origin and varying age groups.

Conclusions: A pediatric resuscitation technique based solely on chest compressions shows lower efficacy in terms of survival at one month and quality of return of neurological function compared to standard resuscitation.

对院外心脏骤停的儿科旁观者进行常规心肺复苏与仅手心肺复苏:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:心脏骤停(SCA)在儿科人群中是一种罕见但严重的医疗紧急情况,其特点是幸存者中死亡率高,神经功能明显受损。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在综合儿科复苏技术的现有证据,重点关注生存率、神经预后以及纯胸外按压复苏(HCPR)与标准复苏(CCPR)的有效性,从而解决当前临床理解中的空白,并为未来的指导方针提供信息。方法:遵循PRISMA指南,我们系统地检索PubMed、Cochrane Library和Embase数据库,比较HCPR与CCPR在儿科复苏中的临床试验。我们采用比较荟萃分析来估计院前自发循环恢复(ROSC)、1个月生存率和神经系统预后良好的生存率的优势比。研究水平优势比(ORs)及其95%置信区间(CI)采用随机效应汇总。结果:HCPR和CCPR的院前ROSC发生率无显著差异,包括基于心脏骤停原因的亚组分析。HCPR组1个月生存率为12.3%,CCPR组为18.0% (p = 0.04)。此外,HCPR在非心脏骤停病例和1岁以上儿童中效果较差。与CCPR (9.0%, p < 0.001)相比,HCPR在1个月时的良好神经预后(6.3%)也较低,在非心脏骤停起源的亚组和不同年龄组中观察到类似的趋势。结论:与标准复苏相比,单纯基于胸部按压的儿科复苏技术在1个月生存率和神经功能恢复质量方面的疗效较低。
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