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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Conventional versus hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for pediatrics with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.