Effectiveness of different compression-to-ventilation methods for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review

Resuscitation. 2017 Sep:118:112-125. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.05.032. Epub 2017 Jun 2.

Abstract

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of different compression-to-ventilation methods during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with cardiac arrest.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until January 2016. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that compared different chest compression-to-ventilation ratios during CPR for all patients and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: favourable neurological outcomes, survival, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and quality of life. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results, abstracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted separately for randomised and non-randomised studies, as well as study characteristics, such as CPR provider.

Results: After screening 5703 titles and abstracts and 229 full-text articles, we included 41 studies, of which 13 were companion reports. For adults receiving bystander or dispatcher-instructed CPR, no significant differences were observed across all comparisons and outcomes. Significantly less adults receiving bystander-initiated or plus dispatcher-instructed compression-only CPR experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and ROSC compared to CPR 30:2 (compression-to-ventilation) in un-adjusted analyses in a large cohort study. Evidence from emergency medical service (EMS) CPR providers showed significantly more adults receiving CPR 30:2 experiencing improved favourable neurological outcomes and survival versus those receiving CPR 15:2. Significantly more children receiving CPR 15:2 or 30:2 experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and greater ROSC compared to compression-only CPR. However, for children <1 years of age, no significant differences were observed between CPR 15:2 or 30:2 and compression-only CPR.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrated that for adults, CPR 30:2 is associated with better survival and favourable neurological outcomes when compared to CPR 15:2. For children, more patients receiving CPR with either 15:2 or 30:2 compression-to ventilation ratio experienced favourable neurological function, survival, and ROSC when compared to CO-CPR for children of all ages, but for children <1years of age, no statistically significant differences were observed.

Keywords: Bystander CPR; Cardiac arrest; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Chest compression; Functional neurological outcome; Quality of life; ROSC; Rate of Return to Spontaneous Circulation; Survival; Ventilation.

Publication types

  • Review
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Age Factors
  • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / methods*
  • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / mortality
  • Child
  • Cohort Studies
  • Emergency Medical Services / statistics & numerical data
  • Female
  • Heart Massage / methods*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Observational Studies as Topic
  • Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest / mortality
  • Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest / therapy*
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome