• Anne Lee Solevåg, Po-Yin Cheung, Helene Lie, Megan O'Reilly, Khalid Aziz, Britt Nakstad, and Georg Marcus Schmölzer.
• Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Centre for the Studies of Asphyxia and Resuscitation, Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. Electronic address: a.l.solevag@medisin.uio.no.
• Resuscitation. 2015 Nov 1; 96: 151-5.

ObjectiveMuch of the knowledge about the optimal way to perform chest compressions (CC) in newborn infants is derived from animal studies. The objective of this review was to identify studies of CC in newborn term animal models and review the evidence. We also provide an overview of the different models.MethodsData SourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, until September 29th 2014. Study eligibility criteria and interventions: term newborn animal models where CC was performed.ResultsBased on 419 retrieved studies from MEDLINE and 502 from EMBASE, 28 studies were included. No additional studies were identified in CINAHL. Most of the studies were performed in pigs after perinatal transition without long-term follow-up. The models differed widely in methodological aspects, which limits the possibility to compare and synthesize findings. Studies uncommonly reported the method for randomization and allocation concealment, and a limited number were blinded. Only the evidence in favour of the two-thumb encircling hands technique for performing CC, a CC to ventilation ratio of 3:1; and that air can be used for ventilation during CC; was supported by more than one study.ConclusionsAnimal studies should be performed and reported with the same rigor as in human randomized trials. Good transitional and survival models are needed to further increase the strength of the evidence derived from animal studies of newborn chest compressions.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…