SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004
Active chest compression-decompression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Part 1: Executive summary: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.Resuscitation · 2010Guideline
- Guideline
- [The new 2005 resuscitation guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council: comments and supplements].Der Anaesthesist · 2006Guideline
- The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2017Trial
- Article
- Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus standard CPR for cardiac arrest patients: a meta-analysis.World journal of emergency medicine · 2013Article
- [Comments on the 2010 guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the European Resuscitation Council].Der Anaesthesist · 2010Article
- Part 7: CPR techniques and devices: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.Circulation · 2010Review
- Review
- Aortic luminal thrombus and intramural hematoma after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundActive compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACDR CPR) uses a hand-held suction device, applied mid sternum, to compress the chest then actively decompress the chest after each compression. Randomised controlled trials on use of active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation have results which are discordant.
objectivesTo determine clinical effects and safety of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STR). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Last search was conducted in January 2004. We checked the reference list of retrieved articles and contacted enterprises manufacturing the active decompression devices. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with a cardiac arrest who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a trained medical or paramedical team. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. All data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The authors of the primary studies were contacted for more information when needed. Studies were cumulated, if appropriate, and pooled relative risk (RR) estimated. Subgroup analysis according to setting (out of hospital or in hospital) and attending team composition (with physician or paramedic only) were predefined. MAIN
resultsTen trials were included: eight were in out-of-hospital settings, one set in-hospital only and one had both in-hospital and out-of-hospital components. Allocation concealment was adequate in 4 trials. The two in-hospital studies were very different in quality (A and C) and size (773 and 53 patients). Both found no differences between ACDR CPR and STR in any outcome. Trials conducted in out-of-hospital settings cumulated 4162 patients. There were no differences between ACDR CPR and STR for mortality either immediately (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.94 - 1.03]) or at hospital discharge (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.98 - 1.01]). The pooled RR of neurological impairment, any severity, was 1.71 [95% CI 0.90 - 3.25], with a non-significant trend to more frequent severe neurological damage in survivors of ACDR CPR (RR 3.11 [95% CI 0.98 - 9.83]). However, assessment of neurological outcome was limited and there were few patients with neurological damage. There was no difference between ACDR CPR and STR with regard complications such as rib or sternal fractures, pneumothorax or hemothorax (RR 1.09 [95% CI 0.86 - 1.38]). Skin trauma and ecchymosis were more frequent with ACDR CPR. REVIEWERS'
conclusionsActive chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.