Lauridsen Kasper G, Bürgstein Emma, Nabecker Sabine, Lin Yiqun, Donoghue Aaron, Duff Jonathan P, Cheng Adam
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Resusc Plus. 2025 Jan 8;21:100868. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100868. eCollection 2025 Jan.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality is often substandard to guidelines for resuscitation teams. We aimed to investigate if the use of a CPR coach as part of the resuscitation team can improve teamwork, quality of care, and patient outcomes during simulated and clinical cardiac arrest resuscitation.
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception until October 9, 2024 for randomized trials and observational studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane tools and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. PROSPERO CRD42024603212.
We screened 505 records and included 7 studies. Overall, 6 were randomized studies involving pediatric resuscitation of which 4 studies were secondary analyses of one simulation-based trial, and one was an observational study on adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Reported outcomes were: CPR performance in a simulated setting (n = 3), workload in a simulated setting (n = 2), adherence to guidelines in a simulated setting (n = 1), team communication in a simulated setting (n = 1), and clinical CPR performance (n = 1). All studies suggested improved CPR quality and guideline adherence when using a CPR coach compared to not using a coach. Risk of bias varied from low to critical and the certainty of evidence across outcomes was low or very low.
We identified low- to very-low certainty of evidence supporting the use of a CPR coach as part of the resuscitation team in order to improve CPR quality and guideline adherence. However, further research is needed, in particular for clinical performance and patient outcomes.
心肺复苏(CPR)质量通常未达复苏团队指南标准。我们旨在研究在模拟和临床心脏骤停复苏过程中,将心肺复苏指导人员作为复苏团队的一部分,是否能改善团队协作、护理质量和患者预后。
我们检索了从数据库建立至2024年10月9日的PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库,以查找随机试验和观察性研究。我们使用Cochrane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。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库编号:CRD42024603212。
我们筛选了505条记录,纳入了7项研究。总体而言,6项为涉及儿科复苏的随机研究,其中4项研究是基于一项模拟试验的二次分析,1项是关于成人院外心脏骤停的观察性研究。报告的结果包括:模拟环境中的心肺复苏表现(n = 3)、模拟环境中的工作量(n = 2)、模拟环境中对指南的遵循情况(n = 1)、模拟环境中的团队沟通(n = 1)以及临床心肺复苏表现(n = 1)。所有研究均表明,与不使用心肺复苏指导人员相比,使用时心肺复苏质量和对指南的遵循情况有所改善。偏倚风险从低到高不等,各结果的证据确定性为低或极低。
我们发现支持将心肺复苏指导人员作为复苏团队的一部分以提高心肺复苏质量和指南遵循情况的证据确定性为低至极低。然而,仍需要进一步研究,特别是关于临床性能和患者预后方面的研究。