Between October 18–21, this website will move to a new web address (from health.gov to odphp.health.gov). During that time, some functions might not work as expected. We appreciate your patience and understanding as we’re working to make this transition as smooth as possible.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

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

Workgroups: Preparedness Workgroup

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)

Increase the rate of bystander CPR for non-traumatic cardiac arrests — PREP‑01
Improving

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