Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Volume-controlled mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pooled result · ROSC (2 RCTs, 120 patients)Result — go to the resultOdds ratio 1.31 95% CI 0.64–2.71Authors' conclusion
Very low to low certainty evidence from randomized trials suggests no significant difference in clinical outcomes between volume-controlled mechanical ventilation and manual ventilation. The relative effectiveness of volume-controlled ventilation compared to other mechanical ventilation modes is uncertain.
Study context
- Population
- Children or adults with cardiac arrest and an advanced airway (no study reported data on children)13 articles
- Comparison
- Volume-controlled vs Manual
- Outcome
- Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)
Methodological detailsRoB2 and ROBINS-I risk of bias, GRADE certainty assessment, 6 trials enrolling 461 patients and 7 non-randomised studies including 4607 patients, RCTs at low to high risk of bias; non-randomised studies at serious or critical risk of bias
- RoB2 and ROBINS-I risk of bias
- GRADE certainty assessment
- 6 trials enrolling 461 patients and 7 non-randomised studies including 4607 patients
- RCTs at low to high risk of bias; non-randomised studies at serious or critical risk of bias
Pooled result
ROSC (2 RCTs, 120 patients)
Odds ratio
1.31
95% CI 0.64–2.71
Volume-controlled vs Manual
OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.64–2.71)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
Volume-controlled vs pressure-controlled and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)-specific modes
- Limited to a single trial each, with uncertain results
Original publication
Volume-controlled mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. Published 3 July 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →