Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25212112›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus delayed defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Yu Huang, Qing He, Li J Yang, Guan J Liu, Alexander Jones

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Barriers and enablers to public access defibrillation - an international RAND-UCLA consensus study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Paediatric Life Support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about cardiac arrest management?Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2018
    Review
  15. Cognitive and Functional Consequence of Cardiac Arrest.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yu HuangDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, The Third People's Hospital of Chengdu / The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu, Chongqing Medical University, 82 Qinglong street, Chengdu, China, 610031.
Qing He
Li J Yang
Guan J Liu
Alexander Jones
Chengdu Third People's Hospital · CNChengdu University · CNMusgrove Park Hospital · GBWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is a common health problem associated with high levels of mortality. Cardiac arrest is caused by three groups of dysrhythmias: ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT), pulseless electric activity (PEA) and asystole. The most common dysrhythmia found in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is VF. During VF or VT, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provides perfusion and oxygenation to the tissues, whilst defibrillation restores a viable cardiac rhythm. Early successful defibrillation is known to improve outcomes in VF/VT. However, it has been hypothesized that a period of CPR before defibrillation creates a more conducive physiological environment, increasing the likelihood of successful defibrillation. The order of priority of CPR versus defibrillation therefore remains in contention. As previous studies have remained inconclusive, we conducted a systematic review of available evidence in an attempt to draw conclusions on whether CPR plus delayed defibrillation or immediate defibrillation resulted in better outcomes in OHCA.

objectivesTo examine whether an initial one and one-half to three minutes of CPR administered by paramedics before defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation on arrival influenced survival rates, neurological outcomes or rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 6); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1948 to May 2013); EMBASE (1980 to May 2013); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1980 to May 2013) and the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), 1980 to May 2013). We included studies published in all languages. We also searched the Current Controlled Trials and Clinical Trials databases for ongoing trials. We screened the references lists of studies included in our review against the reference lists of relevant International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) evidence worksheets. SELECTION CRITERIA: Our participant group consisted of adults over 18 years of age presenting with OHCA who were in VF or pulseless VT at the time of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedic arrival. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of one and one-half to three minutes of CPR versus defibrillation as initial therapy on survival and neurological outcomes of these participants. We excluded observational and cross-over design studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data. We contacted study authors to ask for additional data when required. The risk ratio (RR) for each outcome was calculated and summarized in the meta-analysis after heterogeneity was considered. We used Review Manager software for all analyses. MAIN

resultsWe included four RCTs with a total of 3090 enrolled participants (one study used a cluster-randomized design). Three trials were considered to have a relatively low risk of bias, and one trial was considered to have a relatively high risk. When survival to hospital discharge was compared, 38 of 320 (11.88%) participants survived to discharge in the initial CPR plus delayed defibrillation group compared with 39 of 338 participants (11.54%) in the immediate defibrillation group (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20, Chi(2) = 10.78, degrees of freedom (df) = 5, P value 0.06, I(2) = 54%, low-quality evidence).When we compared the neurological outcome at hospital discharge (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.93, low-quality evidence), the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15,low-quality evidence) and survival at one year (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.49, low-quality evidence), we could not rule out the superiority of either treatment.Adverse effects were not associated with either treatment. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOwing to the low quality of available evidence, we have been unable to determine conclusively whether immediate defibrillation and one and one-half to three minutes of CPR as initial therapy before defibrillation have similar effects on rates of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or neurological insult.We have also been unable to conclude whether either treatment approach provides a degree of superiority in OHCA.We propose that this is an area that needs further rigorous research through additional high-quality RCTs, including larger sample sizes and proper subgroup analysis.

Indexed as

AdultCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCombined Modality TherapyElectric CountershockHumansOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25212112
PMCPMC6516832
OpenAlexW2101190607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.