Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2022
Evaluation of abdominal compression-decompression combined with chest compression CPR performed by a new device: Is the prognosis improved after this combination CPR technique?
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study was designed to compare the outcomes of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (STD-CPR) and combined chest compression and abdominal compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CO-CPR) with a new device following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Moreover, we investigated whether patient prognosis improved with this combination treatment.
methodsThis trial was a single-centre, prospective, randomized trial, and a blinded assessment of the outcomes was performed. A total of 297 consecutive patients with OHCA were initially screened, and 278 were randomized to the STD-CPR group (n = 135) or the CO-CPR group (n = 143). We compared the proportions of patients who achieved a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survived to hospital admission and survived to hospital discharge. In addition, we also performed the Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test at the end of the follow-up period to compare the survival curves of the two groups.
resultsThe differences were not statistically significant in the proportion of patients who achieved ROSC [31/135 (23.0%) versus 35/143 (24.5%)] and survived to hospital admission [28/135 (20.7%) versus 33/143 (23.1%)] between the CO-CPR group and STD-CPR group. However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived to hospital discharge [16/135 (11.9%) versus 7/143 (4.9%)] between the two groups. Nine patients (6.7%) in the CO-CPR group and 2 patients (1.4%) in the STD group showed good neurological outcomes according to the cerebral performance category (CPC) scale score, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.003). The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the patients in the CO-CPR group achieved better survival benefits than those in the STD-CPR group at the end of the follow-up period (log-rank P = 0.007).
conclusionCO-CPR was more beneficial than STD-CPR in terms of survival benefits in patients who have suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registered number: ChiCTR2100049581 . Registered 30 July 2021- Retrospectively registered. http://www.medresman.org.cn/uc/index.aspx .
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.