Bierens Joost, Bray Janet, Abelairas-Gomez Cristian, Barcala-Furelos Roberto, Beerman Stephen, Claesson Andreas, Dunne Cody, Fukuda Tatsuma, Jayashree Muralidharan, T Lagina Anthony, Li Lei, Mecrow Tom, Morgan Patrick, Schmidt Andrew, Seesink Jeroen, Sempsrott Justin, Szpilman David, Thom Ogilvie, Tobin Joshua, Webber Jonathon, Johnson Samantha, Perkins Gavin D
Extreme Environments Laboratory, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Resusc Plus. 2023 Jun 8;14:100406. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100406. eCollection 2023 Jun.
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key resuscitation interventions: 1) immediate versus delayed resuscitation; (2) compression first versus ventilation first strategy; (3) compression-only CPR versus standard CPR (compressions and ventilations); (4) ventilation with and without equipment; (5) oxygen administration prior to hospital arrival; (6) automated external defibrillation first versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation first strategy; (7) public access defibrillation programmes.
The review included studies relating to adults and children who had sustained a cardiac arrest following drowning with control groups and reported patient outcomes. Searches were run from database inception through to April 2023. The following databases were searched Ovid MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The findings are reported as a narrative synthesis.
Three studies were included for two of the seven interventions (2,451 patients). No randomised controlled trials were identified. A retrospective observational study reported in-water resuscitation with rescue breaths improved patient outcomes compared to delayed resuscitation on land ( = 46 patients, very low certainty of evidence). The two observational studies ( = 2,405 patients), comparing compression-only with standard resuscitation, reported no difference for most outcomes. A statistically higher rate of survival to hospital discharge was reported for the standard resuscitation group in one of these studies (29.7% versus 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.36) (very low certainty of evidence).
The key finding of this systematic review is the paucity of evidence, with control groups, to inform treatment guidelines for resuscitation in drowning.
国际复苏联合委员会与来自世界各地的溺水研究人员合作,旨在审查关于七种关键复苏干预措施的证据:1)立即复苏与延迟复苏;(2)按压优先与通气优先策略;(3)单纯胸外按压心肺复苏与标准心肺复苏(按压和通气);(4)使用设备与不使用设备进行通气;(5)在到达医院之前给予氧气;(6)自动体外除颤优先与心肺复苏优先策略;(7)公众可及除颤计划。
该综述纳入了有关溺水后发生心脏骤停的成人和儿童的研究,设有对照组并报告了患者结局。检索从数据库建立至2023年4月。检索了以下数据库:Ovid MEDLINE、Pre-Medline、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库。使用ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险,并使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价方法评估证据的确定性。研究结果以叙述性综述形式报告。
七种干预措施中的两种纳入了三项研究(2451名患者)。未识别到随机对照试验。一项回顾性观察性研究报告称,与在岸上延迟复苏相比,水中进行带救生呼吸的复苏可改善患者结局(n = 46例患者,证据确定性极低)。两项观察性研究(n = 2405例患者)比较了单纯胸外按压与标准复苏,报告大多数结局无差异。在其中一项研究中,标准复苏组报告的出院存活率在统计学上更高(29.7%对18.1%,调整后的优势比1.54(95%置信区间1.01 - 2.36),证据确定性极低)。
该系统综述的关键发现是缺乏有对照组的证据来为溺水复苏的治疗指南提供依据。