ArticleKansas journal of medicine2018
Comparison of Continuous Versus Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR in a Rural Community.
Article in Kansas journal of medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have interruption of manual chest compressions for airway management and breathing when performed by medical personnel trained by Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) standards. This interruption likely reduces blood flow and possibly survival. Traditional CPR (30:2 compressions to ventilations) was compared with continuous chest compressions, CCC (also termed Cardiocerebral Resuscitation, CCR) in a rural community.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis of three years of traditional CPR (June 2008 - May 2011) for OHCA was compared to three years of using CCC protocols (June 2011 - May 2014). Primary outcomes were survival at one and six months.
resultsThere were 58 0HCA patients in the six year study period (June 2008 - May 2014). Forty (69%) received CPR and 18 (31%) received CCC. Two (5%) survived at least one month with CPR and eight (44%) survived at least one month with CCC (p = 0.0007). After six months, 0/40 (0%) who received CPR had survived and 6/18 (33%) who received CCC survived (p = 0.0018). For the patient found in ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia (a shockable rhythm), 0/13 (0.0%) survived one month after CPR and 7/9 (78%) survived with CCC (p < 0.01). After six months 0/13 (0.0%) survived with CPR and 6/9 (67%) survived with CCC (p < 0.05).
conclusionsFor patients in a rural environment with OHCA, CCC had a more favorable outcome than traditional CPR. For the patient found in ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia, there was a profound survival benefit of CCC over CPR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30937151PMC6276968What 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.