The quality of evidence was downgraded for serious risk of bias and indirectness. In unadjusted analysis of crude data from one cohort study (Garza 2009 2597) patients who received 50:2 CPR had increased return of spontaneous circulation (RR 1.58 (1.17, 2.13) RD 21.89 (6.88, 36.90)) when compared to those who received 15:2 CPR. The quality of evidence was downgraded for serious risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness. In a meta-analysis of seven cohort studies (Hostler 2007, Steinmetz 2008 908, Olasveengen 2009 407, Sayre 2009 469, Robinson 2010 1648, Deasy 2011 984, Kudenchuk 2012 1787) patients who received 30:2 CPR had a slightly higher return of spontaneous circulation (RR 1.11 (1.00, 1.23) RD 10.48 (0.41, 20.55)) when compared to those who received 15:2 CPR. The quality of evidence was downgraded for serious risk of bias and indirectness.įor the critical outcomes of return of spontaneous circulation, we identified very low quality evidence from nine cohort studies (Hostler 2007, Bobrow 2008 1158, Steinmetz 2008 908, Garza 2009 2597, Olasveengen 2009 407, Sayre 2009 469, Robinson 2010 1648, Deasy 2011 984, Kudenchuk 2012 1787). In unadjusted analysis of crude data from one cohort study (Garza 2009 2597) patients who received 50:2 CPR had improved survival (RR 1.96 (1.28-2.99) RD 21.48 (6.90, 36.06)) when compared to 15:2 CPR. The quality of evidence was downgraded for serious indirectness. The quality of evidence was downgraded for serious indirectness.įor the critical outcome of survival, we identified very low quality evidence from seven cohort studies (Steinmetz 2008 908, Garza 2009 2597, Olasveengen 2009 407, Sayre 2009 469, Robinson 2010 1648, Deasy 2011 984, Kudenchuk 2012 1787). In a meta-analysis of these studies patients who received 30:2 CPR had improved favorable neurological function of RR 1.34 (1.02, 1.76) RD 1.72 (0.52, 2.91)) when compared to 15:2 CPR.
Timeframe: Published studies in English searched on January 15, 2016įor the critical outcome of favorable neurological function, we identified very low quality evidence from two cohort studies (Olasveengen 2009 407, Kudenchuk 2012 1787). Study designs without a comparator group (e.g., case series, cross-sectional studies), reviews, and pooled analyses were excluded. Study designs: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies) were eligible for inclusion. Secondary outcomes were survival, ROSC, and quality of life.
Outcomes: The primary outcome was favorable neurological outcomes, measured by cerebral performance or a modified Rankin Score. CO-CPR included compression with no ventilations, while CC-CPR included compression with asynchronous ventilations or minimally-interrupted cardiac resuscitation (MICR) Studies that mentioned the use of a mechanical device during CPR were only considered if the same device was used across all relevant intervention arms and would therefore not confound the observed effect.Ĭomparators: Studies had to compare at least two different CPR methods from the eligible interventions studies without a comparator were excluded.
#Compression to ventilation ratio manual#
Intervention: All manual CPR methods including Compression-only CPR (CO-CPR), Continuous Compression CPR (CC-CPR), and CPR with different compression-to-ventilation ratios. Studies that included animals were not eligible.
Population: Patients of all ages (i.e., neonates, children, adults) with cardiac arrest from any cause and across all settings (in-hospital and outof-hospital). The PICOST (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study Designs and Timeframe) Brussels, Belgium: International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), Basic Life Support Task Force, 2017 July 30. CPR: Chest Compression to Ventilation Ratio-Adult Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendation. Olasveengen T, Mancini MB, Berg, RA, Brooks S, Castren M, Chung SP, Considine J, Escalante R, Gazmuri R, Hatanaka T, Koster R, Kudenchuk P, Lim SH, Lofgren B, Nation K, Nishiyma C, Perkins GD, Ristagno G, Sakamoto T, Sayre, M, Sierra A, Smyth M, Stanton D, Travers A, Valliancourt C, Morley P, Nolan,J.
0 kommentar(er)
