Current evidence of survival benefit between chest-compression only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Tóm tắt
Evidence to support a better cardiopulmonary resuscitation method between standard vs. continuous chest compression (STD-CPR vs. CCC-CPR) is lacking. 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. 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. 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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Gu W, Li C (2017) Ventilation strategies during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a problem that should not be neglected. J Emerg Crit Care Med 1:23–23. https://doi.org/10.21037/jeccm.2017.08.08
Mawani M et al. (2016) Epidemiology and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a developing country—a multicenter cohort study. BMC Emerg Med. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-016-0093-2
Nichol G et al. (2015) Trial of continuous or interrupted chest compressions during CPR. N Engl J Med 373:2203–2214. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1509139
Garg R et al. (2017) Compression-only life support (COLS) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation by layperson outside the hospital. Indian J Anaesth 61:867. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_636_17
Zhan L et al. (2017) Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non-asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010134.pub2
Nofzinger JR et al. (2019) Effectiveness of hands-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation teaching on lay bystander attitudes toward future resuscitation. Spartan Med Res J 4:1–6
Perman SM et al. (2019) Public perceptions on why women receive less bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation than men in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation 139:1060–1068. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037692
Gianotto-Oliveira R et al. (2015) Quality of continuous chest compressions performed for one or two minutes. Clinics 70:190–195. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2015(03)07
Lee SD, Hong JY, Oh JH (2018) Why should we switch chest compression providers every 2 minutes during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Signa Vitae J Intensive Care Emerg Med 14:31–34. https://doi.org/10.22514/SV142.102018.4
Shin J et al. (2014) Comparison of CPR quality and rescuer fatigue between standard 30:2 CPR and chest compression-only CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 22:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-014-0059-x
Yang CL et al. (2012) Cardiocerebral resuscitation vs cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Am J Emerg Med 30:784–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2011.02.035
Cabrini L et al. (2010) Bystander-initiated chest compressiononly CPR is better than standard CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth 2:279–285
Hüpfl M, Selig H, Nagele P (2010) Chest-compression-only versus standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis. Lancet 376:1552–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61454-7
Monsieurs KG et al. (2015) European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2015. Section 1. Executive summary. Resuscitation 95:1–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.038
Koster TM et al. (2019) Apparently conclusive meta-analysis on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive—a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 114:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.011
Castellini G et al. (2018) Assessing imprecision in cochrane systematic reviews: a comparison of GRADE and trial sequential analysis. Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0770-1
Moher D et al. (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Higgins JPT et al. (2016) A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201601
Higgins JP, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Chichester
Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wettersley J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C (2011) User manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research. http://www.ctu.dk/tsa/files/tsa_manual.pdf
Zhang Y et al. (2019) GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences—inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol 111:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.011
Zhang Y et al. (2019) GRADE Guidelines: 19. assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences—Risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 111:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.013
Balshem H et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
GRADEpro GDT (2019) GRADEpro guideline development tool [software] (2015) mcmaster university. https://gradepro.org. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
Gold LS, Eisenberg M (2008) Chest-compression-only vs. standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation: shouldn’t we wait for more evidence? Prehosp Emerg Care 12:406–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903120802096696
Hui C, Brindley P (2011) Continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Can J Anaesth 58:330–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-010-9426-x
Dumas F et al. (2013) Chest compression alone cardiopulmonary resuscitation is associated with better long-term survival compared with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Circulation 127:435–441. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.124115
Kitamura T et al. (2010) Conventional and chest-compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation by bystanders for children who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: a prospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study. Lancet 375:1347–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60064-5
Panchal AR et al. (2013) Chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by lay rescuers for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to non-cardiac aetiologies. Resuscitation 84:435–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.07.038
Japanese Circulation Society Resuscitation Science Study Group (2013) Chest-compression-only bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio era. Circ J 77:2742–2750. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.cj-13-0457
Brown SP et al. (2015) A randomized trial of continuous versus interrupted chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: rationale for and design of the resuscitation outcomes consortium continuous chest compressions trial. Am Heart J 169:334–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2014.11.011
Cunningham LM et al. (2012) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: the importance of uninterrupted chest compressions in cardiac arrest resuscitation. Am J Emerg Med 30:1630–1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.02.015
Drager KK (2012) Improving patient outcomes with compression-only CPR: will bystander CPR rates improve? J Emerg Nurs 38:234–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2011.02.008
Meier P et al. (2010) Chest compressions before defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. BMC Med 8:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-52
Yao L et al. (2014) Compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an updated meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Emerg Med 32:517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.01.055
Rea TD et al. (2010) CPR with chest compression alone or with rescue breathing. N Engl J Med 363:423–433. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0908993
Hallstrom A et al. (2000) Cardiopulmonary resuscitation by chest compression alone or with mouth-to-mouth ventilation. N Engl J Med 342:1546–1553. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200005253422101
Svensson L et al. (2010) Compression-only CPR or standard CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 363:434–442. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0908991
Kleinman ME et al. (2018) ILCOR scientific knowledge gaps and clinical research priorities for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a consensus statement. Circulation 137:e802–e819. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000561
Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E (2010) Interpreting meta-analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV-infected individuals. Clin Epidemiol 2:57–66. https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.s9242