Current evidence of survival benefit between chest-compression only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest : Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
Herz · 2020-09-25 · Meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence to support a better cardiopulmonary resuscitation method between standard vs. continuous chest compression (STD-CPR vs. CCC-CPR) is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest database from 1985 to 26 September 2019 restricted to randomized controlled trial, human study, and English articles. Quality assessment of between-study heterogeneity and a trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted. We estimated overall significance with 80% power and adjusted Z values thresholds using O'Brien-Fleming α‑spending function. Required information size with 21% relative risk using the estimation between-group incidences provided from the median rate across trials was determined. Inconclusive TSA result will lead to size estimation of future RCT. Quality of evidence was analyzed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Handbook and TSA. RESULTS: Based on three trials in OHCA with dispatcher-guided and bystander-initiated CPR, our meta-analysis favors CCC-CPR for survival to hospital discharge, compared to STD-CPR (RR [Risk Ratio] = 1.21[1.01-1.46], 95% CI, p = 0.68, I2 = 0). However, current meta-analyses with 3031 patients appeared to be inconclusive. There is a significant risk of type 1 error and therefore, results are potentially false positive. It is estimated that a minimal of 4331 patients needed to deem a conclusive result and a total of 5894 patients with similar risk profile required to stabilize statistic results in future trials. Quality of evidence is downgraded to moderate due to serious imprecision based on TSA. CONCLUSION: Based on these analyses, evidence is inadequate to conclude the superiority of one CPR method over the other. Further trials with larger numbers of patients are needed to deem a conclusive and stable meta-analysis.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Bystanders · Mortality & survival
Related articles
- Chest compression-only vs standard CPR in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA): Cardiac and neurological outcomes. (Am J Med, 2026)
- Meta-analysis of chest compression-only versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for adult with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Cardiol J, 2023)
- Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non-asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017)
- Standard basic life support vs. continuous chest compressions only in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. (Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2008)
- Comparison of chest compression only and standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Singapore. (Resuscitation, 2008)
- Dispatcher-assisted conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation and outcomes for paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. (Resuscitation, 2022)