Per a court order, HHS is required to restore this website to its version as of 12:00 AM on January 29, 2025. Information on this page may be modified and/or removed in the future subject to the terms of the court’s order and implemented consistent with applicable law. Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from truth. The Trump Administration rejects gender ideology due to the harms and divisiveness it causes. This page does not reflect reality and therefore the Administration and this Department reject it.

Continuous Chest Compression Versus Interrupted Chest Compression for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of Non-Asphyxial Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

About this resource:

Systematic review

Source: The Cochrane Collaborative

Last Reviewed: March 2017

In this Cochrane systematic review, the Cochrane Collaborative found that when untrained bystanders performed CPR, with help from emergency medical services (EMS) professionals via telephone, people were more likely to survive to hospital discharge with continuous chest compression-only CPR than interrupted chest compressions plus rescue breathing. When EMS professionals performed CPR, people were slightly less likely to survive to hospital discharge with continuous chest compressions plus rescue breathing than with interrupted chest compressions plus rescue breathing.  These interventions are for people who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Read more about this resource

Objectives related to this resource (1)

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