Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Mechanical versus manual bag-valve ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with cardiac arrest: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis
Pooled result · Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)Result — go to the resultPooled relative risk 1.20 95% CrI 1.04–1.42Authors' conclusion
In adult cardiac arrest, MV use during CPR was associated with higher ROSC compared with manual BV. Evidence for improved survival and neurological outcomes remains imprecise and inconclusive.
Study context
- Population
- Adult cardiac arrest patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)patients in 8 included studies
- Participants
- 6,847 patients
- Comparison
- Mechanical ventilation (MV) use during CPR compared with manual BV
- Outcome
- Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)
Methodological detailsBayesian random-effects meta-analyses
- Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Pooled relative risk
1.20
95% CrI 1.04–1.42
MV vs BV
pooled RR 1.20 (95% CrI 1.04–1.42)
- Posterior probability of benefit
- 99%
Further pooled results
Survival to hospital admission (primary outcome)
- Posterior probability favoring MV
- 92.3%
Survival to hospital discharge (primary outcome)
- Posterior probability favoring MV
- 93.6%
Good neurological outcome (primary outcome)
- Posterior probability favoring MV
- 92.2%
Safety
Pneumothorax
- Incidence similar between groups
Original publication
Mechanical versus manual bag-valve ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with cardiac arrest: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Resuscitation. Published 12 October 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →