Elsevier

Resuscitation

Volume 119, October 2017, Pages 5-12
Resuscitation

Review
Ventilation rate in adults with a tracheal tube during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systematic review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.07.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Aim

The optimal ventilation rate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with a tracheal tube is unknown. We evaluated whether in adults with cardiac arrest and a secure airway (tracheal tube), a ventilation rate of 10 min−1, compared to any other rate during CPR, improves outcomes.

Methods

A systematic review up to 14 July 2016. We included both adult human and animal studies. A GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.

Results

We identified one human observational study with 67 patients and ten animal studies (234 pigs and 30 dogs). All studies carried a high risk of bias. All studies evaluated for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Studies showed no improvement in ROSC with a ventilation rate of 10 min-1 compared to any other rate. The evidence for longer-term outcomes such as survival to discharge and survival with favourable neurological outcome was very limited.

Conclusion

A ventilation rate recommendation of 10 min-1 during adult CPR with a tracheal tube and no pauses for chest compression is a very weak recommendation based on very low quality evidence.

Introduction

Current guidelines recommend a ventilation rate of 10 min−1 without pausing chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with a tracheal tube in place [1], [2]. Numerous observational studies show that ventilation rates greater than 10 min−1 are common during actual CPR [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. A reduced ventilation rate could be sufficient to maintain a normal ventilation to perfusion ratio during CPR as the cardiac output generated by chest compressions is only 10–15% of normal [12]. An increased ventilation rate during CPR can increase the mean intrathoracic pressure reducing venous return to the heart, increase lung volume and pulmonary vascular resistance, reduce cardiac output, and decrease coronary perfusion pressure and aortic blood pressure [5], [6], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Positive pressure ventilation can also increase intracranial pressure and thus reduce cerebral perfusion [13], [15], [17]. Conversely, the relative negative intrathoracic pressures generated during the decompression phase of chest compression can increase the return of venous blood to the heart and increase blood flow to the myocardium and the brain during chest compressions [15], [17], [18], [19]. Positive pressure ventilation could therefore negate these beneficial effects of chest wall recoil [15], [20].

The optimal ventilation rate to ensure adequate gas exchange without reducing the perfusion of vital organs is uncertain [21]. In a pig study, increasing the compression: ventilation (C:V) ratio from 15:2 to 15:1 improved coronary and cerebral perfusion pressure [17]. In another pig study, there was improved coronary perfusion pressure with a ventilation rate of 10 min−1 compared to 35 min−1 but no difference in 1 h and 24 h survival [22]. Other studies do not report similar improvements in organ perfusion [23], [24]. During the first five minutes of CPR, a ventilation rate of 2 min−1 resulted in lower carotid blood flow and brain oxygen tension than a ventilation rate of 10 min−1 [21]. In another study, a lack of ventilation during CPR was associated with atelectasis, arterial hypoxaemia and compromised haemodynamics [25].

This systematic review was conducted as part of the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendation (CoSTR) process [26], [27], [28]. We evaluated whether in adults with cardiac arrest and a secure airway (tracheal tube), the current recommended ventilation rate of 10 min−1, compared to any other rate during CPR, improves outcomes.

Section snippets

Methods

This systematic review followed the process described by ILCOR for its 2015 Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendation (CoSTR) process [26]. Worksheet evaluation experts reviewed the search strategy and its findings. The method was informed and validated against the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [29].The PRISMA checklist is completed and attached as Supplementary Appendix A. In addition, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment,

Study selection

The search strategy identified 839 potentially relevant studies off which 680 were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts (Fig. 1). Of the 159 remaining studies, 148 were excluded after reviewing the full text. Eleven studies of ventilation with a tracheal tube during CPR that assessed ventilation rate were included in the systematic review.

Study characteristics

One human observational study with 67 subjects [3] and 10 animal studies including 234 pigs and 30 dogs met the inclusion criteria [5], [6], [16]

Discussion

The current ventilation rate recommendation of 10 min−1 during CPR with a tracheal tube is a weak recommendation based on very low quality evidence. We did not identify any human studies that address the critical PICO outcomes (survival or survival with favourable neurologic/functional outcome at discharge/30 days, 60 days, 180 days, and/or 1 year) [28]. For the important outcome of ROSC, we only identified very low quality evidence (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and indirectness, and

Conclusion

A ventilation rate recommendation of 10 min−1 during adult CPR with a tracheal tube and no pauses for chest compression is a very weak recommendation based on very low quality evidence. Ventilation rate is only one of many airway and breathing interventions. Future studies will need to look at a combination of factors to help us understand the role of ventilation rate during CPR with a tracheal tube.

Disclaimer

This review includes information on resuscitation questions developed through the C2015 Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) process, managed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (www.ilcor.org/seers). The questions were developed by ILCOR Task Forces, using strict conflict of interest guidelines. In general, each question was assigned to two experts to complete a detailed structured review of the literature, and complete a detailed evidence evaluation.

Author contributions

Study concept and design: Gino Vissers (GV), Koenraad G. Monsieurs (KGM) Jasmeet Soar (JS). Performance of literature searches and selection of articles: GV, KGM, JS. Analysis and interpretation of data: GV, KGM, JS. Creating figures, tables and graphs: GV. Drafting of the manuscript: GV, JS. Critical revision of the manuscript: KGM, JS. Study supervision: KGM, JS. All the authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding and support

No funding was received from any source with regards to the writing of this article.

Conflicts of interest statement

GV has no conflicts of interest. JS is an editor of the journal Resuscitation and Chair of the ILCOR ALS Task Force. KGM is Honorary Secretary of ILCOR.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Dr Eddy Lang, and Dr Peter Morley with regards to data collection, analysis, and methodology.

References (44)

  • D.H. Newman et al.

    Cerebral oximetry in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: standard CPR rarely provides detectable hemoglobin-oxygen saturation to the frontal cortex

    Resuscitation

    (2004)
  • K. Markstaller et al.

    Effect of chest compressions only during experimental basic life support on alveolar collapse and recruitment

    Resuscitation

    (2008)
  • D. Moher et al.

    Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2009)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence–imprecision

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence–indirectness

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence–inconsistency

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence–publication bias

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias)

    J Clin Epidemiol

    (2011)
  • E. Cavus et al.

    Impact of different compression-ventilation ratios during basic life support cardiopulmonary resuscitation

    Resuscitation

    (2008)
  • R.J. Gazmuri et al.

    Clinically plausible hyperventilation does not exert adverse hemodynamic effects during CPR but markedly reduces end-tidal PCO(2)

    Resuscitation

    (2012)
  • A.B. Sanders et al.

    Survival and neurologic outcome after cardiopulmonary resuscitation with four different chest compression-ventilation ratios

    Ann Emerg Med

    (2002)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Continuous flow insufflation of oxygen for cardiac arrest: Systematic review of human and animal model studies

      2021, Resuscitation
      Citation Excerpt :

      During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), current guidelines recommend a ventilation rate of approximately 10 min−1 concurrently with continuous chest compressions once an advanced airway is secured.1–5 However, the optimal ventilation strategy is yet uncertain, as this recommendation is mainly based on animal studies or human observational studies with high risk of bias.6,7 In a recent cohort study (n = 337), the ventilation rate (<10 min−1 vs >10 min−1) was not significantly associated with any clinically-relevant outcome.8

    • Optimizing airway management and ventilation during prehospital advanced life support in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A narrative review

      2021, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Anaesthesiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      An optimal ventilation frequency, sufficient for adequate oxygenation, but as few as possible to prevent a high intrathoracic pressure with a decrease in venous return, is assumed [72]. The current recommended ventilation frequency of 10 ventilations per minute is based on animal studies [73]. Subsequent observational clinical studies showed higher ventilation frequencies to be associated with no worse and at times even a positive effect on survival [74–76].

    • European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Adult advanced life support

      2021, Resuscitation
      Citation Excerpt :

      In Europe, the most common approach during CPR with an unprotected airway is to give two ventilations after each sequence of 30 chest compressions. Once a tracheal tube (TT) or an SGA has been inserted, ventilate the lungs at a rate of 10 min−1 and continue chest compressions without pausing during ventilations (expert opinion).251 The laryngeal seal achieved with an SGA may not be good enough to prevent at least some gas leaking when inspiration coincides with chest compressions.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text