Effectiveness of combinations of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation, impedance threshold devices and head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Resuscitation plus Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100760
Shona E. Main , David B. Sidebottom , Charles D. Deakin , James Raitt , Helen Pocock , Julian Hannah , James O.M. Plumb
{"title":"Effectiveness of combinations of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation, impedance threshold devices and head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review","authors":"Shona E. Main ,&nbsp;David B. Sidebottom ,&nbsp;Charles D. Deakin ,&nbsp;James Raitt ,&nbsp;Helen Pocock ,&nbsp;Julian Hannah ,&nbsp;James O.M. Plumb","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This review summarises the current evidence base for combinations of neuroprotective CPR adjuncts (active compression-decompression chest compressions, impedance threshold devices, and head-up positioning) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic search (PROSPERO registration CRD42023432302) was performed in English on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in August 2023, and repeated in February 2024. All randomised and observational studies (not abstracts) reporting on any combination of the aforementioned CPR adjuncts were included. Papers were screened independently by two researchers, with a third reviewer acting as tiebreaker. Out-of-hospital, non-traumatic, cardiac arrests in patients &gt;18 years were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eight of 1172 unique articles identified in the initial searches were included, with five randomised controlled trials and three observational studies. No randomised trial investigated a bundle of all three interventions. All randomised controlled trials were at intermediate or high risk of bias. Neurologically favourable survival was greater in patients treated with an impedance threshold device and active compression-decompression CPR when compared to standard CPR (8.9% vs 5.8%, <em>p</em> = 0.019) in the largest existing randomised trial. Conflicting results were found in observational studies comparing the complete neuroprotective bundle to standard CPR.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This review was limited by small study numbers and overlapping samples, which precluded a meta-analysis. Limited data suggests that combinations of adjuncts to improve cerebral perfusion during CPR may improve survival with favourable neurological outcome. A randomised controlled trial is required to establish whether combining all three together results in improved outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100760"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266652042400211X/pdfft?md5=779b3882d92c39764acc0349cc93ba19&pid=1-s2.0-S266652042400211X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266652042400211X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This review summarises the current evidence base for combinations of neuroprotective CPR adjuncts (active compression-decompression chest compressions, impedance threshold devices, and head-up positioning) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods

A systematic search (PROSPERO registration CRD42023432302) was performed in English on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in August 2023, and repeated in February 2024. All randomised and observational studies (not abstracts) reporting on any combination of the aforementioned CPR adjuncts were included. Papers were screened independently by two researchers, with a third reviewer acting as tiebreaker. Out-of-hospital, non-traumatic, cardiac arrests in patients >18 years were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Eight of 1172 unique articles identified in the initial searches were included, with five randomised controlled trials and three observational studies. No randomised trial investigated a bundle of all three interventions. All randomised controlled trials were at intermediate or high risk of bias. Neurologically favourable survival was greater in patients treated with an impedance threshold device and active compression-decompression CPR when compared to standard CPR (8.9% vs 5.8%, p = 0.019) in the largest existing randomised trial. Conflicting results were found in observational studies comparing the complete neuroprotective bundle to standard CPR.

Conclusions

This review was limited by small study numbers and overlapping samples, which precluded a meta-analysis. Limited data suggests that combinations of adjuncts to improve cerebral perfusion during CPR may improve survival with favourable neurological outcome. A randomised controlled trial is required to establish whether combining all three together results in improved outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主动加压-减压心肺复苏术、阻抗阈值装置和抬头心肺复苏术组合在成人院外心脏骤停中的效果:系统综述
方法于 2023 年 8 月在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统检索(PROSPERO 注册号为 CRD42023432302),并于 2024 年 2 月重复检索。纳入了所有报道上述心肺复苏辅助药物任何组合的随机研究和观察性研究(非摘要)。论文由两名研究人员独立筛选,并由第三名审稿人进行裁决。年满 18 岁的院外非创伤性心脏骤停患者符合纳入条件。使用 "偏倚风险2 "工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对偏倚风险进行了评估。结果 在初步检索中发现的1172篇文章中,有8篇被纳入,其中包括5项随机对照试验和3项观察性研究。没有一项随机试验对三种干预措施的捆绑进行了调查。所有随机对照试验均存在中度或高度偏倚风险。在现有最大的随机试验中,与标准心肺复苏术相比,使用阻抗阈值装置和主动加压-减压心肺复苏术治疗的患者神经存活率更高(8.9% vs 5.8%,p = 0.019)。在将完整神经保护捆绑术与标准心肺复苏术进行比较的观察性研究中发现了相互矛盾的结果。有限的数据表明,在心肺复苏过程中结合使用改善脑灌注的辅助措施可能会提高存活率,并带来良好的神经功能预后。需要进行随机对照试验,以确定将这三种方法结合在一起是否能改善结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
期刊最新文献
Cricothyroidotomy in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study Does delivering chest compressions to patients who are not in cardiac arrest cause unintentional injury? A systematic review Why physicians use sodium bicarbonate during cardiac arrest: A cross-sectional survey study of adult and pediatric clinicians Application of multi-feature-based machine learning models to predict neurological outcomes of cardiac arrest Associations of long-term hyperoxemia, survival, and neurological outcomes in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients undergoing targeted temperature management: A retrospective observational analysis of the SAVE-J Ⅱ study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1