{"id":3931,"date":"2010-10-14T19:04:07","date_gmt":"2010-10-14T23:04:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/?p=3931"},"modified":"2011-07-19T17:44:46","modified_gmt":"2011-07-19T21:44:46","slug":"meta-analysis-lends-more-support-to-compression-only-cpr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2010\/10\/14\/meta-analysis-lends-more-support-to-compression-only-cpr\/","title":{"rendered":"Meta-Analysis Lends More Support to Compression-Only CPR"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s new evidence supporting the movement away from traditional bystander CPR in favor of chest-compression-only CPR. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thelancet.com\/journals\/lancet\/article\/PIIS0140-6736(10)61454-7\/abstract\">In a paper appearing online in the <em>Lancet<\/em><\/a>, Michael H\u00fcpfl, Harald F Selig, and Peter Nagele report the results of two separate meta-analyses. In the first meta-analysis, the investigators combined data from 3 randomized trials comparing compression-only CPR to standard CPR as directed by dispatcher instructions. The rate of survival to hospital discharge was 14% in the standard CPR group compared to 12% in the compression-only group (risk ratio 1.22, p=0.40).<\/p>\n<p>However, in the second meta-analysis, the authors analyzed results from 7 observational cohort studies and found no difference between the two CPR techniques, with an 8% survival in each group. The authors noted that the second meta-analysis did not investigate dispatcher-assisted CPR. They concluded that their findings &#8220;support the idea that emergency medical services dispatch should instruct bystanders to focus on chest-compression-only CPR in adults with out-of- hospital cardiac arrest.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In an accompanying comment, Jerry Nolan and Jasmeet Soar write that for adult cardiac arrest cases, the dispatcher should provide instructions on compression-only CPR: &#8220;the &#8216;kiss of life&#8217; should be replaced by &#8216;Keep It Simple, Stupid&#8217;.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There&#8217;s new evidence supporting the movement away from traditional bystander CPR in favor of chest-compression-only CPR. In a paper appearing online in the Lancet, Michael H\u00fcpfl, Harald F Selig, and Peter Nagele report the results of two separate meta-analyses. In the first meta-analysis, the investigators combined data from 3 randomized trials comparing compression-only CPR to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[316,241],"class_list":["post-3931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-compression-only-cpr","tag-cpr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}