Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus standard CPR for cardiac arrest patients: a meta-analysis
10.5847/wjem.j.issn.1920-8642.2013.04.004
- Author:
Xu-Rui LUO
1
;
Hui-Li ZHANG
;
Geng-Jin CHEN
;
Wen-Shu DING
;
Liang HUANG
Author Information
1. Department of Emergency Medicine
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Active compression-decompression;
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
Cardiac arrest;
Meta-analysis
- From:
World Journal of Emergency Medicine
2013;4(4):266-272
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) has been popular in the treatment of patients with cardiac arrest (CA). However, the effect of ACD-CPR versus conventional standard CPR (S-CRP) is contriversial. This study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of ACD-CPR versus S-CRP in treating CA patients. METHODS: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials published from January 1990 to March 2011 were searched with the phrase "active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardiac arrest" in PubMed, EmBASE, and China Biomedical Document Databases. The Cochrane Library was searched for papers of meta-analysis. Restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rate, survival rate to hospital admission, survival rate at 24 hours, and survival rate to hospital discharge were considered primary outcomes, and complications after CPR were viewed as secondary outcomes. Included studies were critically appraised and estimates of effects were calculated according to the model of fixed or random effects. Inconsistency across the studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic method. Sensitivity analysis was made to determine statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the criteria for this meta-analysis. The studies included 396 adult CA patients treated by ACD-CPR and 391 patients by S-CRP. Totally 234 CA patients were found out hospitals, while the other 333 CA patients were in hospitals. Two studies were evaluated with high-quality methodology and the rest 11 studies were of poor quality. ROSC rate, survival rate at 24 hours and survival rate to hospital discharge with favorable neurological function indicated that ACD-CPR is superior to S-CRP, with relative risk (RR) values of 1.39 (95% CI 0.99–1.97), 1.94 (95%CI 1.45–2.59) and 2.80 (95% CI 1.60–5.24). No significant differences were found in survival rate to hospital admission and survival rate to hospital discharge for ACD-CPR versus S-CRP with RR values of 1.06 (95% CI 0.76–1.60) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.73–1.38). CONCLUSION: Quality controlled studies confirmed the superiority of ACD-CPR to S-CRP in terms of ROSC rate and survival rate at 24 hours. Compared with S-CRP, ACD-CPR could not improve survival rate to hospital admission or survival rate to hospital discharge.
