Effects between chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a Meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2018.11.002
- VernacularTitle:单纯胸外按压CPR与常规CPR对院外心脏停搏患者复苏效果对比的Meta分析
- Author:
Xueli LIAO
1
;
Bihua CHEN
;
Hui TANG
;
Yanze WANG
;
Min WANG
;
Manhong ZHOU
Author Information
1. 遵义医学院附属医院急诊科
- Keywords:
Chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest;
Bystander;
Meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2018;30(11):1017-1023
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To comprehensively evaluate and compare the resuscitation efficacy of chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods Databases such as PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, CBM were searched from the date of their foundation to March 2nd 2018, and the studies on the difference of effects between CCPR and SCPR for patients with OHCA were retrieved. The outcomes included the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, survival to hospital discharge, neurological function completion rate. Two reviewers independently screened the literature meeting the inclusion criteria, independently collected information and evaluated the literature quality. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software, and sensitivity analysis was conducted by selecting model analysis method and removing single research method. Funnel plot was used to evaluate publication bias. Results A total of 10 cohort studies were included, including 174 163 patients with OHCA, of which 95 157 undergone CCPR and 79 006 undergone SCPR. The scores of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were 8-9, indicating that the quality of the literatures included was high. It was shown by the Meta-analysis that CCPR had the higher rate of survival to hospital discharge [relative risk (RR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.00-1.08, P = 0.04] and neurological function completion (RR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.06-1.17, P < 0.000 1) than SCPR, but there was no significant difference in ROSC rate between the two groups (RR = 1.01, 95%CI = 0.98-1.04, P = 0.52). In the subgroup, there was no statistical significance between CCPR and SCPR in the rate of survival to hospital discharge in cardiac OHCA patients (RR = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.82-1.57, P = 0.45). However, in non-cardiac OHCA group, SCPR showed more benefits than CCPR in improving the rate of survival to hospital discharge (RR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.80-0.96, P = 0.004). The above analysis results were consistent in the fixed effect model and random effect model, indicating that the results were reliable and stable. It was shown by the funnel plot that most of the studies were left-right inverted funnel type, indicating a low publication bias. However, the bias could not be completely excluded due to the small number of included literatures. Conclusions For patients without OHCA etiological classification, CCPR was not less than SCPR in improving ROSC rate, discharge survival rate and good neurological function, and CCPR was more advantageous in learning and the willingness of bystanders to implement. However, when non-cardiogenic OHCA could be identified, SCPR should be recommended when conditions permit.
