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。

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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