↓ Skip to main content

Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non‐asphyxial out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
225 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non‐asphyxial out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010134.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhan, Lei, Yang, Li J, Huang, Yu, He, Qing, Liu, Guan J

Abstract

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death worldwide. Cardiac arrest can be subdivided into asphyxial and non asphyxial etiologies. An asphyxia arrest is caused by lack of oxygen in the blood and occurs in drowning and choking victims and in other circumstances. A non asphyxial arrest is usually a loss of functioning cardiac electrical activity. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a well-established treatment for cardiac arrest. Conventional CPR includes both chest compressions and 'rescue breathing' such as mouth-to-mouth breathing. Rescue breathing is delivered between chest compressions using a fixed ratio, such as two breaths to 30 compressions or can be delivered asynchronously without interrupting chest compression. Studies show that applying continuous chest compressions is critical for survival and interrupting them for rescue breathing might increase risk of death. Continuous chest compression CPR may be performed with or without rescue breathing. To assess the effects of continuous chest compression CPR (with or without rescue breathing) versus conventional CPR plus rescue breathing (interrupted chest compression with pauses for breaths) of non-asphyxial OHCA. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1 2017); MEDLINE (Ovid) (from 1985 to February 2017); Embase (1985 to February 2017); Web of Science (1985 to February 2017). We searched ongoing trials databases including controlledtrials.com and clinicaltrials.gov. We did not impose any language or publication restrictions. We included randomized and quasi-randomized studies in adults and children suffering non-asphyxial OHCA due to any cause. Studies compared the effects of continuous chest compression CPR (with or without rescue breathing) with interrupted CPR plus rescue breathing provided by rescuers (bystanders or professional CPR providers). Two authors extracted the data and summarized the effects as risk ratios (RRs), adjusted risk differences (ARDs) or mean differences (MDs). We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. We included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cluster-RCT (with a total of 26,742 participants analysed). We identified one ongoing study. While predominantly adult patients, one study included children. Untrained bystander-administered CPRThree studies assessed CPR provided by untrained bystanders in urban areas of the USA, Sweden and the UK. Bystanders administered CPR under telephone instruction from emergency services. There was an unclear risk of selection bias in two trials and low risk of detection, attrition, and reporting bias in all three trials. Survival outcomes were unlikely to be affected by the unblinded design of the studies.We found high-quality evidence that continuous chest compression CPR without rescue breathing improved participants' survival to hospital discharge compared with interrupted chest compression with pauses for rescue breathing (ratio 15:2) by 2.4% (14% versus 11.6%; RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.46; 3 studies, 3031 participants).One trial reported survival to hospital admission, but the number of participants was too low to be certain about the effects of the different treatment strategies on survival to admission(RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.48; 1 study, 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence).There were no data available for survival at one year, quality of life, return of spontaneous circulation or adverse effects.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of the different strategies on neurological outcomes at hospital discharge (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.66; 1 study, 1286 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The proportion of participants categorized as having good or moderate cerebral performance was 11% following treatment with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing compared with 10% to 18% for those treated with continuous chest compression CPR without rescue breathing. CPR administered by a trained professional In one trial that assessed OHCA CPR administered by emergency medical service professionals (EMS) 23,711 participants received either continuous chest compression CPR (100/minute) with asynchronous rescue breathing (10/minute) or interrupted chest compression with pauses for rescue breathing (ratio 30:2). The study was at low risk of bias overall.After OHCA, risk of survival to hospital discharge is probably slightly lower for continuous chest compression CPR with asynchronous rescue breathing compared with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing (9.0% versus 9.7%) with an adjusted risk difference (ARD) of -0.7%; 95% CI (-1.5% to 0.1%); moderate-quality evidence.There is high-quality evidence that survival to hospital admission is 1.3% lower with continuous chest compression CPR with asynchronous rescue breathing compared with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing (24.6% versus 25.9%; ARD -1.3% 95% CI (-2.4% to -0.2%)).Survival at one year and quality of life were not reported.Return of spontaneous circulation is likely to be slightly lower in people treated with continuous chest compression CPR plus asynchronous rescue breathing (24.2% versus 25.3%; -1.1% (95% CI -2.4 to 0.1)), high-quality evidence.There is high-quality evidence of little or no difference in neurological outcome at discharge between these two interventions (7.0% versus 7.7%; ARD -0.6% (95% CI -1.4 to 0.1).Rates of adverse events were 54.4% in those treated with continuous chest compressions plus asynchronous rescue breathing versus 55.4% in people treated with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing compared with the ARD being -1% (-2.3 to 0.4), moderate-quality evidence). Following OHCA, we have found that bystander-administered chest compression-only CPR, supported by telephone instruction, increases the proportion of people who survive to hospital discharge compared with conventional interrupted chest compression CPR plus rescue breathing. Some uncertainty remains about how well neurological function is preserved in this population and there is no information available regarding adverse effects.When CPR was performed by EMS providers, continuous chest compressions plus asynchronous rescue breathing did not result in higher rates for survival to hospital discharge compared to interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing. The results indicate slightly lower rates of survival to admission or discharge, favourable neurological outcome and return of spontaneous circulation observed following continuous chest compression. Adverse effects are probably slightly lower with continuous chest compression.Increased availability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), and AED use in CPR need to be examined, and also whether continuous chest compression CPR is appropriate for paediatric cardiac arrest.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 225 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 7%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 5 18%
Other 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Unspecified 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 180. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2017.
All research outputs
#43,537
of 8,638,298 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 8,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,308
of 252,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,638,298 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,749 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.