4.5 Review

Chest compressions in newborn infants: a scoping review

Journal

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2022-324529

Keywords

Neonatology; Cardiology; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Resuscitation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found a limited number of clinical studies on neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, with the majority of evidence coming from manikin and animal studies. The findings either supported or did not provide sufficient evidence to change previous recommendations.
Aim The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force undertook a scoping review of the literature to identify evidence relating to neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Methods MEDLINE complete, EMBASE and Cochrane database of Systematic reviews were searched from inception to November 2021. Two authors screened titles and abstracts and full text reviewed. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed and assessed one of five aspects of chest compression in the newborn infant including: (1) heart rate thresholds to start chest compressions (CC), (2) compression to ventilation ratio (C:V ratio), (3) CC technique, (4) oxygen use during CC and 5) feedback devices to optimise CC.Results Seventy-four studies were included (n=46 simulation, n=24 animal and n=4 clinical studies); 22/74 were related to compression to ventilation ratios, 29/74 examined optimal technique to perform CC, 7/74 examined oxygen delivery and 15/74 described feedback devices during neonatal CC.Conclusion There were very few clinical studies and mostly manikin and animal studies. The findings either reinforced or were insufficient to change previous recommendations which included to start CC if heart rate remains <60/min despite adequate ventilation, using a 3:1 C:V ratio, the two-thumb encircling technique and 100% oxygen during CC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available