About this resource:

Systematic review

Source: The Cochrane Collaborative

Last Reviewed: March 2017

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death worldwide. This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of continuous chest compression CPR (with or without rescue breathing) versus conventional CPR plus rescue breathing (interrupted chest compression with pauses for breaths) of non-asphyxial OHCA. It identified 4 randomized controlled trials. Three studies assessed CPR provided by untrained bystanders and 1 assessed CPR provided by trained professionals. When CPR was performed by bystanders, survival to hospital discharge was higher with chest compression alone than with interrupted chest compression with pauses for rescue breathing. When CPR was performed by professionals, survival to hospital discharge was slightly lower with continuous chest compressions plus asynchronous rescue breathing compared with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing. The number of people who survived to hospital admission was slightly higher in those treated with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing compared with continuous chest compression plus asynchronous rescue breathing. Overall, when CPR was performed by untrained bystanders who were assisted via telephone by emergency services, continuous chest compression-only CPR led to more people surviving to hospital discharge (compared with interrupted chest compression plus artificial ventilation CPR for non asphyxial OHCA).

Read more about this resource

Suggested Citation

1.

Zhan, L., Yang, L. J., Huang, Y., He, Q., & Liu, G. J. (2017). Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non‐asphyxial out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017 (3). DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010134.pub2