Chest compressions before defibrillation for outofhospital cardiac arrest: A metaanalysis of randomized controlled clinical trials
 Pascal Meier^{1, 2}Email author,
 Paul Baker^{3},
 Daniel Jost^{4},
 Ian Jacobs^{5},
 Bettina Henzi^{6},
 Guido Knapp^{7} and
 Comilla Sasson^{8}
DOI: 10.1186/17417015852
© Meier et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 17 May 2010
Accepted: 9 September 2010
Published: 9 September 2010
Abstract
Background
Current 2005 guidelines for advanced cardiac life support strongly recommend immediate defibrillation for outofhospital cardiac arrest. However, findings from experimental and clinical studies have indicated a potential advantage of pretreatment with chest compressiononly cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to defibrillation in improving outcomes. The aim of this metaanalysis is to evaluate the beneficial effect of chest compressionfirst versus defibrillationfirst on survival in patients with outofhospital cardiac arrest.
Methods
Main outcome measures were survival to hospital discharge (primary endpoint), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), neurologic outcome and longterm survival.
Randomized, controlled clinical trials that were published between January 1, 1950, and June 19, 2010, were identified by a computerized search using SCOPUS, MEDLINE, BIOS, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database, and Web of Science and supplemented by conference proceedings. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs). A subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the effects of response interval greater than 5 min on outcomes.
Results
A total of four trials enrolling 1503 subjects were integrated into this analysis. No difference was found between chest compressionfirst versus defibrillationfirst in the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (OR 1.01 [0.821.26]; P = 0.979), survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.10 [0.701.70]; P = 0.686) or favorable neurologic outcomes (OR 1.02 [0.313.38]; P = 0.979). For 1year survival, however, the OR point estimates favored chest compression first (OR 1.38 [0.952.02]; P = 0.092) but the 95% CI crossed 1.0, suggesting insufficient estimate precision. Similarly, for cases with prolonged response times (> 5 min) point estimates pointed toward superiority of chest compression first (OR 1.45 [0.663.20]; P = 0.353), but the 95% CI again crossed 1.0.
Conclusions
Current evidence does not support the notion that chest compression first prior to defibrillation improves the outcome of patients in outofhospital cardiac arrest. It appears that both treatments are equivalent. However, subgroup analyses indicate that chest compression first may be beneficial for cardiac arrests with a prolonged response time.
Background
There are an estimated 294,851 emergency medical services (EMS)assessed outofhospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in the United States each year [1, 2]. The most common underlying arrhythmias of witnessed arrests are ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation [3]. Despite major attempts to improve the chain of survival, survival rates for OHCA remain the same at 7.6% for over 30 years [4]. Average rates of survival to hospital discharge are as low as 0.3% in some communities [5, 6] and depend strongly not only on the time to initiation of chest compressions but also on the time until defibrillation and the underlying rhythm [3]. While the first two factors can be influenced, they cannot be performed simultaneously. Controversy about priority has resulted from experimental and clinical data.
Current guidelines of the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) were last updated in 2005 and emphasize the importance of early defibrillation. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR), ERC and AHA clearly prioritize early defibrillation [7, 8]. However, the AHA guidelines state that in cases of nonwitnessed events, one cycle of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/chest compressions may be considered before defibrillation (class IIb recommendation) [7]. The interval from compression to defibrillation is highly critical as impaired myocardial oxygenation distinctively decreases defibrillation success rates while myocardial preoxygenation may improve outcome [9, 10].
There is, however, clinical equipoise whether professional chest compression only promptly followed by defibrillation could increase myocardial "readiness" for defibrillation. Data from the first randomized clinical trials (RCT) have shown conflicting results, but most studies were limited in size and underpowered to allow definite conclusions. A recent largescale observational study indicated potential benefit for preshock chest compressions [11].
This is the first metaanalysis to systematically review the current research on chest compression first as compared to defibrillation first on outcomes in patients with OHCA.
Methods
The study was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (Additional file 1) [12]. Planning and study design were done by two authors (CS, PM), including creation of an electronic database with variables of interest (Microsoft Excel). Primary and secondary endpoints, variables of interest and search strategy (databases, sources for unpublished data) were defined in a strategy outline which can be obtained from study authors on request.
Data Sources and Searches
A search was conducted of SCOPUS, MEDLINE (via PubMed), BIOS, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database, and Web of Science from January 1, 1950, to June 19, 2010, supplemented by the conference proceedings of the American Heart Association (20062009), the American College of Cardiology (20062010), the European Society of Cardiology (20012009), the symposium on Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (20062009), the World Congress of Cardiology (20062009) and the European Resuscitation Council Scientific Symposium (20062009). We also considered published review articles, editorials, and Internetbased sources of information (http://www.tctmd.com, http://www.theheart.org, http://www.europcronline.com, http://www.cardiosource.com, http://www.crtonline.com and Google scholar). For details on search strategy for MEDLINE, see Additional file 2. Similar but adapted search terms were used for the other literature databases.
Study selection
Data extraction and quality assessment
Relevant information from the articles, including baseline clinical characteristics of the study population and outcome measures, were extracted by two reviewers (PM, BH) using the prepared standardized extraction database (MS Excel); data on outcome (see endpoint definition below), total patient numbers per group, and covariables of interest (average age, gender, witnessed arrest, bystander CPR, response time upon arrival of emergency medical service EMS as defined by each study) were extracted. The quality of each trial was assessed using the Jadad scale to ensure sufficient quality but was not implemented in the analysis due to relevant limitations of such approaches [13, 14]. Absolute numbers were recalculated when percentages were reported. All corresponding authors of included trials were contacted to ensure accuracy of the data extraction and in an attempt to obtain more information and individual patient level data.
Endpoints
 1.
Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)
 2.
Survival to hospital discharge
 3.
Favorable neurologic outcome at discharge (cerebral performance category (CPC) score 1 or 2)
 4.
Longterm outcome (survival at 1 year)
"Favorable neurological outcome" was defined as a CPC score of 1 or 2 (no or moderate cerebral disability).
Definition of a "clinically relevant" change for the primary endpoint
We regarded a relative change of at least 2025% as clinically relevant. Power analyses of prospective randomized trials evaluating interventions for OHCA (predefibrillation chest compression, therapeutic hypothermia) used variable definitions for "clinically relevant" differences in survival, ranging from 32550% [15–19]. Therapeutic hypothermia as one of few measures with proven benefits in OHCA showed a 35% increase in survival in a recent metaanalysis of randomized trials [20]. Since survival is such an essential endpoint, we regard a relative change of at least 2025% as already clinically relevant, while on the other hand, a lower threshold would not be very meaningful in the context of the general low survival to discharge rate for OHCA (average 7.6%) [4]. This would increase the risk to detect incidental differences.
Data synthesis and analysis
All analyses were performed on an intenttotreat basis. Data of included studies were combined to estimate the pooled treatment effect (odds ratio, OR) for the chest compressionfirst compared to the defibrillationfirst groups. Calculations were based on a DerSirmonian and Laird random effects model [21]. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative metaanalytical approaches such as the HartungKnapp method, which tends to be more conservative, and by metaregression analyses (mixedeffects model) for the subgroups as defined below (R package "metafor") [22, 23]. Continuity correction was used when no event occurred in one group to allow calculation of an odds ratio [24]. We used the rank correlation test to assess the risk for publication bias [25, 26]. Heterogeneity among trials was quantified with Higgins's and Thompson's I ^{ 2 } . I ^{2} can be interpreted as the percentage of variability due to heterogeneity between studies rather than sampling error. On the basis of findings in a previous observational study, an a priori subgroup analysis of response time from event to EMS arrival (≤5 min versus >5 min) was also conducted [27]. Further, a metaregression analysis was performed on the basis of the mean response intervals of each study using a mixedeffects model. Weighted average incidence of events for the chest compressionfirst and the defibrillationfirst groups were calculated on the basis of a random effect analysis using a FreemanTukey double arcsine transformation and the inverse variance method [28]. Findings are presented as point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Analyses have been performed by two investigators independently (GK, PM). All analyses were performed with R version 2.10.1 (packages "meta," "rmeta," and "metafor") [29].
Results
Description of included studies
Characteristics of included studies.
Author  Year  Location  Group  Patients (n)  Age (yrs)  Male (%)  Witnessed (%)  Bystander CPR performed (%)  Response time (min) 

Jost [15]  2010  France  Defi.first  424  62  79  86  21  10:54 
Compr.first  421  65  78  87  21  10:30  
Baker [16]  2008  Australia  Defi first  105  66*  80  79  58  08:14 
Compr.first  97  65*  84  84  59  07:41  
Jacobs [17]  2005  Australia  Defi first  137  62  80  74  54  09:00 
Compr.first  119  64  80  80  64  09:20  
Wik [18]  2003  Norway  Defi first  96  80*  89  94  56  11:42 
Compr.first  104  71*  85  91  62  12:00 
Characteristics of included studies.
Author  Year  Group  CPR pretreatment (sec)  Compression to ventilation ratio  No. of consecutive shocks 

Jost  2010  Defi first  Cardiopump*  3  
Compr.first  60  Cardiopump*  1  
Baker  2008  Defi first  3  
Compr.first  180  15:2  3  
Jacobs  2005  Defi first  3  
Compr.first  90  5:1  3  
Wik  2003  Defi first  3  
Compr.first  180  5:1  3 
Quality of included studies (Jadad score).
Author  Randomized  Appropriate randomization  Double blind  Appropriate blinding (single blind)  Drop outs appropriately declared  Score 

Jost  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  4/5 
Baker  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  4/5 
Jacobs  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  4/5 
Wik  Yes  Yes  No  Yes  Yes  4/5 
Outcomes
Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)
Survival to hospital discharge
As summarized for all response times in Figure 2b, the direct comparison between the chest compressionfirst and the defibrillationfirst approach did not reveal a relevant difference (OR 1.10 [0.701.70]; P = 0.686; heterogeneity: I ^{2} = 34.4%, P = 0.206). The average weighted proportion of patients able to leave the hospital after cardiac arrest was 12.0% [6.419.1%] for the chest compressionfirst group as compared to 11.4% [7.116.6%] for the defibrillationfirst group.
Favorable neurologic outcome
The average weighted proportion of patients with favorable neurological status was 13.7% [4.925.9%] after chest compression first and 13.3% [9.018.3%] after defibrillation first. As seen in Figure 2c, patients who were treated with chest compression first did not show an increased likelihood of a "favorable neurologic outcome" (as defined by a CPC score of 1 or 2) compared to those with defibrillation first (OR 1.02 [0.313.38]; P = 0.979; heterogeneity: I ^{2} = 74.9%, P = 0.05).
Oneyear survival
As shown in Figure 2d, the OR point estimates favored a chest compressionfirst approach (OR 1.38 [0.952.02]; P = 0.092; heterogeneity: I ^{2} = 0%, P = 0.647). However, the 95% confidence intervals crossed 1.0, indicating insufficient precision of the effect size estimation and resulting in statistical nonsignificance. The average weighted proportion of patients able to leave the hospital after cardiac arrest with chest compression first it was 11.0% [4.819.5%] as compared to 8.6% [4.813.4%] for patients treated with defibrillation first.
Subgroup Analyses Based on Response Intervals (Call to EMS Arrival)
Response Interval ≤5 minutes
ROSC
Survival to discharge
The point estimates of the OR for this outcome were in disfavor of predefibrillation chest compressions (OR 0.69 [0.361.32]; P = 0.263; heterogeneity: I ^{2} = 0%, P = 0.954) (Figure 5b). The 95% confidence interval crossed 1.0, indicating inadequate precision of the effect estimate, resulting in statistical nonsignificance.
Neurologic outcome
As Figure 5c shows, the OR point estimate was in disfavor of predefibrillation chest compression approach (OR 0.57 [0.231.43]; P = 0.300 (heterogeneity: 0%; P = 0.370). Again, the 95% confidence interval crossed 1.0, and the difference was therefore not statistically significant.
Response Interval >5 minutes
ROSC
Survival to discharge
The point estimate for the OR pointed toward superiority of chest compression first, but the confidence interval crossed 1.0; thus, the finding was not statistically significant (OR 1.45 [0.663.20]; P = 0.353; heterogeneity: 59.1%; P = 0.062) (Figure 6b).
Neurologic outcome
As Figure 6c illustrates, there was no relevant difference between the two groups (OR 1.02 [0.313.38]; P = 0.879; heterogeneity: I ^{2} = 84.2%; P = 0.012).
Metaregression analysis based on mean response intervals
This analysis showed a significant effect of the mean response interval of each study in the control arm on the effect of predefibrillation chest compression; the point estimates of the OR pointed toward inferiority of predefibrillation chest compression for studies with short mean response intervals but toward superiority for studies with longer mean response intervals (Additional file 3; Supplementary Figure 1). This response interval effect was statistically significant. The slope of the metaregression was 0.0051 [0.00040.0097]; P = 0.033. That is, for every absolute increase of 1 time unit (1 second) in the response time, the log odds ratio increased by 0.0051 (in direction to superiority of a chest compressionfirst approach). At around 600 seconds (10 min) response time, the regression line crosses OR 1.0 (equipoise between the two interventions). Additional file 4, Supplementary Table 6 gives an overview of variable response intervals with corresponding predicted odds ratios.
Sensitivity analyses
The analysis performed with the HartungKnapp metaanalytical approach and by a mixedeffects metaregression analysis revealed almost identical results (see Additional file 5, Supplementary Tables 35. Also, a sensitivity analysis was conducted without the study by Jost et al. [15], as this study did not exclusively test the effect of chest compression first, but also the effect of three consecutive shock applications versus a single shock at a time. Also, most patients did not receive bystander CPR; CPR was initiated in most cases by firefighters using a CPR device instead of manual compressions. When excluding this study, the results did not change despite the considerable weight (study size) of this study in this analysis (data not presented).
Publication bias assessment
Regarding the primary endpoint, the rank correlation test was not suggestive for publication bias, P = 0.588.
Discussion
This is the first metaanalysis evaluating the effect of chest compression first versus defibrillation first in patients having outofhospital cardiac arrest. We included four randomized, controlled clinical trials with 1503 subjects. Overall, our findings suggest that there was no significant difference between the two groups in general. However, our subgroup analyses of patients with a response interval >5 min found point estimates that pointed toward superiority of a chest compressionfirst approach and vice versa for the subgroup with response interval ≤5 min. The point estimate for the 1year survival results pointed toward a lower 1year mortality for chest compressionfirst patients, which was mainly driven by studies with longer EMS response times [15, 18]. However, the 95% confidence intervals of these subgroup and longterm analyses crossed 1.0, indicating insufficient precision of the effect estimates and resulting in statistical nonsignificance. These analyses were based on smaller patient numbers.
Rational for Chest Compressions Prior to Defibrillation
Chest compressions serve to empty the right ventricle (RV) and to avoid RV distension during VF, which helps to reduce the risk of occurrence of "nonperfusing" postdefibrillation rhythms (e.g., pulseless electrical activity or asystole) [30, 31]. Two experimental animal studies on ventricular defibrillation have demonstrated that chest compression first may improve defibrillation success in comparison to the standard defibrillation first approach. A randomized study in swine conducted by Berg et al. and a study by Niemann et al. in dogs both showed higher efficiency for chest compression prior to defibrillation [32, 33]. Data from a study conducted on humans showed that even short preshock pauses were found to strongly correlate with lower defibrillation success [34]. Accordingly, a large observational study by Cobb et al. demonstrated improved survival for patients treated for outofhospital cardiac arrest after implementation of chest compressionfirst protocol compared to the preceding 42 months with the standard defibrillationfirst approach [27]. Similarly, a study including 886 patients of Bobrow et al. performed in Arizona implementing a protocol of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions before defibrillation (single shock) showed a remarkable increase in survivaltohospital discharge, from 1.8% to 5.4% after protocol implementation [35, 36]. Yet, despite all of the above data from experimental and observational studies, our metaanalysis based on randomized clinical trials in humans shows that both treatments appear to be equivocal, with point estimates that favor chest compression first regarding longterm outcomes.
Several aspects could explain this controversy. First, findings from experimental animal studies may not apply to humans, especially since most models use electrical induction of ventricular fibrillation, which may not appropriately reflect the majority of cardiac arrests in humans [37]. In a more recent study in swine using an acute myocardial ischemia model, 24hr survival with a favorable neurological outcome was less likely when chest compressions were performed prior to defibrillation [38]. Second, observational studies [27, 35] are more prone to confounding than randomized trials. Because we decided a priori to include only randomized, controlled trials in our metaanalysis, our results may differ from these large observational studies. Finally, it may be that the treatment effect of chest compression first may be dependent on the response interval from the time of call to EMS response. Further research, with patientlevel data, will need to be conducted to assess whether this finding is consistent.
Short versus longerduration cardiac arrest
The possible difference in treatment effect for longerlasting (response interval >5 min) makes plausible sense from a pathophysiological standpoint. Cardiac arrest (due to ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF)) is definitively not a static event. Rather, it is a dynamic process with sometimes continuous transitions starting with VT, transforming into coarse and then into fine amplitude VF and finally into asystole; these different electrocardiogram morphologies are obviously associated with different degrees of defibrillation success [39]. During the course of VF highenergy phosphates are progressively depleted, which also decreases the chances for successful defibrillation [40].
Niemann et al. demonstrated the superiority chest compression first in a dog model [33], but found better outcomes for defibrillation first in a subsequent study [41]. In this second study, VF duration was relevantly shorter (5 min versus 7.5 min in the first study). Another study conducted in dogs specifically evaluated different VF durations, showing differential results based on the duration of VF. For shortlasting VF arrests (< 3 min), defibrillation first was superior to chest compression first [42]. It has to be considered, however, that most experimental animal studies used electrical induction of VF, which may not be identical to ischemiainduced VF [37]. The study by Cobb et al. included in our analysis showed the most prominent benefit for chest compression first if response time was >4 min [27].
In 2002, Weisfeldt et al. proposed a threephase timesensitive model for treatment of sudden cardiac arrest: the electrical phase (early phase during the first around 04 min where immediate defibrillation may be optimal, the circulatory phase (410 min) where predefibrillation chest compressions could be meaningful, and the metabolic phase (> 10 min), where survival rates are poor in general [39]. The authors stated in their editorial that "phasespecific research is needed to extend knowledge of the importance of time on resuscitation, such as testing early defibrillation and public access defibrillation programs during the electrical phase and testing chest compression and vasoconstrictors first during the circulatory phase." [39]. Our findings support the view of Weisfeld et al. as illustrated in Figure 4 and as shown in the subgroup analyses of patients with longer versus those with shorter response intervals.
Limitations of this study
It has to be considered that nonstratified overall results showed odds ratios very close to 1.0; that is, no treatment effect with fairly narrow confidence (precision) intervals and with very little heterogeneity. In contrast, OR point estimates pointed toward superiority of predefibrillation chest compressions for those cardiac arrests with prolonged EMS response, while in patients with shorter EMS intervals these OR estimates pointed toward superiority of a defibrillationfirst approach (Figures 5 and 6). Owing to the smaller sample sizes in these subgroups, confidence intervals were wider due to reduced precision of these estimates. The confidence intervals for these subgroup analyses crossed 1.0; i.e., the result was statistically not significant. It is possible that there is in fact a difference that was not detected by our analysis due to limited statistical power. An interaction between optimal treatment and response time is further supported by the observation that the odds ratios were influenced by the average response intervals of the individual studies (Figure 3 and Additional file 1). However, the metaregression analysis (Additional file 1), even though in line with the findings of the subgroup analyses, has to be interpreted with care because it is based on summary measure (mean response intervals of each study) and not on individual response intervals. Metaanalyses are useful for synthesizing the literature and to explore areas for further exploration rather than to provide a definitive conclusion. Future research based on this metaanalysis could be conducted with patientlevel data to assess whether the overall pooled results are consistent with the individuallevel data.
RCT data are considered the "golden standard" and superior to observational studies. Clearly, the latter are more prone to be biased by confounding, and, accordingly, we considered RCT exclusively in this metaanalysis. Nevertheless, there are caveats for RCT also [43]; this is especially true in the context of human emergency medicine research. The vast majority of patients assessed for inclusion in these trials were finally not eligible because of predefined exclusion criteria or owing to logistical reasons. Thus, the patient selection associated with RCT potentially complicates generalizability of findings into routine clinical practice. For example, bystander CPR rate ranged from 5464% in three of the included trials, while the AHA estimates the average bystander CPR rate in the United States to be 31.4% [1]. Future research will need to be conducted on communities that may be more generalizable than the study populations in this analysis.
A further limitation of this study is the heterogeneity of the study protocols. Three of the four included trials use the 2000 guidelines with a "threeshock protocol" [16–18],
while one study utilized a single shock application (as advocated in the current 2005 guidelines) in the chest compression first group [15]. All four studies did not control for the quality of chest compressions. The quality of chest compressions has a key impact on outcome and is often insufficient, even for inhospital cardiac arrests [34] and even in some experimental studies [44]. We cannot exclude that the quality of compressions in the included studies was insufficient, and as a consequence, the studies were unable to show a benefit. Because of the differences in study protocols, we chose to use a random effects model rather than a fixedeffect model for data analysis.
Finally, we did not have the complete set of individual patient data, and our analyses are thus based on studylevel data. Therefore, we could not adjust the analysis for covariables. For example, the 1year survival data for the study by Jost et al. [15] are based on KaplanMeier survival estimates, which showed a survival probability of 10.6% in the intervention group and 7.6% in the control group (P = 0.45).
Conclusions
The results of this metaanalysis demonstrate that survival is equivocal for the chest compressionfirst group as compared to the defibrillationfirst group. Thus, current guidelines emphasizing early defibrillation still appear appropriate. However, the study revealed signals toward possible superiority of predefibrillation chest compressions for patients with a response interval of >5 min; the statistical power of this study was insufficient for such subgroup analyses, and none reached statistical significance. These signals suggest that the optimal treatment of cardiac arrest patients may depend on the duration of the event and the timeliness of the response. Future research will need to be conducted to assess whether this differential effect is seen in patients treated for outofhospital cardiac arrest. This may lead to different treatment guidelines based on the duration of the arrest and the interval of the response.
Abbreviations
 AHA:

American Heart Association
 CPR:

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
 ERC:

European Resuscitation Council
 EMS:

Emergency medical services
 ILCOR:

International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
 OHCA:

Outofhospital cardiac arrests
 OR:

Odds ratio
 RCT:

Randomized clinical trials
 ROSC:

Return of spontaneous circulation.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We are especially grateful to Whitney Townsend, Librarian, Taubman Medical Library, University of Michigan, for her input during literature search and Dr. Jose Jalife, University of Michigan Center for Arrhythmia Research, for his help during this project. We also thank Dr. Petter A. Steen and Dr. Lars Wik, Ulleval University Hospital, Oslo, Norway for providing further information on their study and for data verification.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 LloydJones D, Adams R, Carnethon M, De Simone G, Ferguson TB, Flegal K, Ford E, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Hailpern S, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lackland D, Lisabeth L, Marelli A, McDermott M, Meigs J, Mozaffarian D, Nichol G, O'Donnell C, Roger V, Rosamond W, Sacco R, Sorlie P, Stafford R, Steinberger J, Thom T, WasserthielSmoller S, Wong N, WylieRosett J, Hong Y, American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee: Heart disease and stroke statistics2009 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2009, 119 (3): 480486. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nichol G, Thomas E, Callaway CW, Hedges J, Powell JL, Aufderheide TP, Rea T, Lowe R, Brown T, Dreyer J, Davis D, Idris A, Stiell I, Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Investigators: Regional variation in outofhospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome. JAMA. 2008, 300 (12): 14231431. 10.1001/jama.300.12.1423.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Holmberg M, Holmberg S, Herlitz J: The problem of outofhospital cardiacarrest prevalence of sudden death in Europe today. Am J Cardiol. 1999, 83 (5B): 88D90D. 10.1016/S00029149(98)01008X.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sasson C, Rogers MA, Dahl J, Kellermann AL: Predictors of survival from outofhospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010, 3 (1): 6381. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.889576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Zheng ZJ, Croft JB, Giles WH, Mensah GA: Sudden cardiac death in the United States, 1989 to 1998. Circulation. 2001, 104 (18): 21582163. 10.1161/hc4301.098254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Dunne RB, Compton S, Zalenski RJ, Swor R, Welch R, Bock BF: Outcomes from outofhospital cardiac arrest in Detroit. Resuscitation. 2007, 72 (1): 5965. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.04.017.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 ECC Committee, Subcommittees and Task Forces of the American Heart Association: 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2005, 112 (24 Suppl): IV1IV203.Google Scholar
 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: 2005 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Part 1: introduction. Resuscitation. 2005, 67 (23): 181186. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2005.09.010.Google Scholar
 Eftestol T, Sunde K, Steen PA: Effects of interrupting precordial compressions on the calculated probability of defibrillation success during outofhospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2002, 105 (19): 22702273. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000016362.42586.FE.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Valenzuela TD: Priming the pump: can delaying defibrillation improve survival after sudden cardiac death?. JAMA. 2003, 289 (11): 14341436. 10.1001/jama.289.11.1434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Garza AG, Gratton MC, Salomone JA, Lindholm D, McElroy J, Archer R: Improved patient survival using a modified resuscitation protocol for outofhospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2009, 119 (19): 25972605. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.815621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (7): e100009710.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials. 1996, 17 (1): 112. 10.1016/01972456(95)001344.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M: The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for metaanalysis. JAMA. 1999, 282: 10541060. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Jost D, Degrange H, Verret C, Hersan O, Banville IL, Chapman FW, Lank P, Petit JL, Fuilla C, Migliani R, Carpentier JP, DEFI 2005 Work Group: DEFI 2005. a randomized controlled trial of the effect of automated external defibrillator cardiopulmonary resuscitation protocol on outcome from outofhospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 121: 16141622. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.878389.
 Baker PW, Conway J, Cotton C, Ashby DT, Smyth J, Woodman RJ, Grantham H: Defibrillation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation first for patients with outofhospital cardiac arrests found by paramedics to be in ventricular fibrillation? A randomised control trial. Resuscitation. 2008, 79 (3): 424431. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.07.017.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Jacobs IG, Finn JC, Oxer HF, Jelinek GA: CPR before defibrillation in outofhospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. Emerg Med Australas. 2005, 17 (1): 3945. 10.1111/j.17426723.2005.00694.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wik L, Hansen TB, Fylling F, Steen T, Vaagenes P, Auestad BH, Steen PA: Delaying defibrillation to give basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation to patients with outofhospital ventricular fibrillation: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003, 289 (11): 13891395. 10.1001/jama.289.11.1389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bernard SA, Gray TW, Buist MD, Jones BM, Silvester W, Gutteridge G, Smith K: Treatment of comatose survivors of outofhospital cardiac arrest with induced hypothermia. N Engl J Med. 2002, 346 (8): 557563. 10.1056/NEJMoa003289.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Arrich J, Holzer M, Herkner H, Mullner M: Cochrane corner: hypothermia for neuroprotection in adults after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Anesth Analg. 2010, 110 (4): 1239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 DerSimonian R, Laird N: Metaanalysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7 (3): 177188. 10.1016/01972456(86)900462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Knapp G, Hartung J: Improved tests for a random effects metaregression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003, 22 (17): 26932710. 10.1002/sim.1482.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Meier P, Knapp G, Tamhane U, Chaturvedi S, Gurm HS: Short term and intermediate term comparison of endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid artery stenosis: systematic review and metaanalysis of randomised controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2010, 340: c46710.1136/bmj.c467.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Sankey SS, Weissfeld LA, Fine MJ, Kapoor W: An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in metaanalysis. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 1996, 25: 10311056. 10.1080/03610919608813357.Google Scholar
 Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J: Arcsine test for publication bias in metaanalyses with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2008, 27 (5): 74663. 10.1002/sim.2971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schwarzer G, Antes G, Schumacher M: A test for publication bias in metaanalysis with sparse binary data. Stat Med. 2007, 26 (4): 721733. 10.1002/sim.2588.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cobb LA, Fahrenbruch CE, Walsh TR, Copass MK, Olsufka M, Breskin M, Hallstrom AP: Influence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation prior to defibrillation in patients with outofhospital ventricular fibrillation. JAMA. 1999, 281 (13): 11821188. 10.1001/jama.281.13.1182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Miller J: The inverse of the FreemanTukey double arcsine transformation. Am Stat. 1978, 32: 13810.2307/2682942.Google Scholar
 R Development Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2010, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3900051070Google Scholar
 Herlitz J, Bang A, Holmberg M, Axelsson A, Lindkvist J, Holmberg S: Rhythm changes during resuscitation from ventricular fibrillation in relation to delay until defibrillation, number of shocks delivered and survival. Resuscitation. 1997, 34 (1): 1722. 10.1016/S03009572(96)010647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chamberlain D, Frenneaux M, Steen S, Smith A: Why do chest compressions aid delayed defibrillation?. Resuscitation. 2008, 77 (1): 1015. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.11.010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Berg RA, Hilwig RW, Ewy GA, Kern KB: Precountershock cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves initial response to defibrillation from prolonged ventricular fibrillation: a randomized, controlled swine study. Crit Care Med. 2004, 32 (6): 13521357. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000127780.01362.E5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Niemann JT, Cairns CB, Sharma J, Lewis RJ: Treatment of prolonged ventricular fibrillation. Immediate countershock versus highdose epinephrine and CPR preceding countershock. Circulation. 1992, 85 (1): 281287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Edelson DP, Abella BS, KramerJohansen J, Wik L, Myklebust H, Barry AM, Merchant RM, Hoek TL, Steen PA, Becker LB: Effects of compression depth and preshock pauses predict defibrillation failure during cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2006, 71 (2): 137145. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.04.008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bobrow BJ, Clark LL, Ewy GA, Chikani V, Sanders AB, Berg RA, Richman PB, Kern KB: Minimally interrupted cardiac resuscitation by emergency medical services for outofhospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2008, 299 (10): 11581165. 10.1001/jama.299.10.1158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ramaraj R, Ewy GA: Rationale for continuous chest compression cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Heart. 2009, 95 (24): 19781982. 10.1136/hrt.2009.174268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Niemann JT, Rosborough JP, Youngquist S, Thomas J, Lewis RJ: Is all ventricular fibrillation the same? A comparison of ischemically induced with electrically induced ventricular fibrillation in a porcine cardiac arrest and resuscitation model. Crit Care Med. 2007, 35 (5): 13561361. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000261882.47616.7D.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Indik JH, Hilwig RW, Zuercher M, Kern KB, Berg MD, Berg RA: Preshock cardiopulmonary resuscitation worsens outcome from circulatory phase ventricular fibrillation with acute coronary artery obstruction in swine. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009, 2 (2): 179184. 10.1161/CIRCEP.108.824862.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Weisfeldt ML, Becker LB: Resuscitation after cardiac arrest: a 3phase timesensitive model. JAMA. 2002, 288 (23): 30353038. 10.1001/jama.288.23.3035.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kern KB, Garewal HS, Sanders AB, Janas W, Nelson J, Sloan D, Tacker WA, Ewy GA: Depletion of myocardial adenosine triphosphate during prolonged untreated ventricular fibrillation: effect on defibrillation success. Resuscitation. 1990, 20 (3): 221229. 10.1016/03009572(90)90005Y.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Niemann JT, Cruz B, Garner D, Lewis RJ: Immediate countershock versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation before countershock in a 5minute swine model of ventricular fibrillation arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 2000, 36 (6): 543546. 10.1067/mem.2000.109441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Yakaitis RW, Ewy GA, Otto CW, Taren DL, Moon TE: Influence of time and therapy on ventricular defibrillation in dogs. Crit Care Med. 1980, 8 (3): 157163. 10.1097/0000324619800300000014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nallamothu BK, Hayward RA, Bates ER: Beyond the randomized clinical trial: the role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies. Circulation. 2008, 118 (12): 12941303. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.703579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sattur S, Kern KB: Increasing CPR duration prior to first defibrillation does not improve return of spontaneous circulation or survival in a swine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation. Resuscitation. 2009, 80 (3): 38210.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.11.005. author reply 382383PubMedGoogle Scholar
 The prepublication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/17417015/8/52/prepub
Prepublication history
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.