Acute cardiac care & resuscitationCohort study

Association of rescue breathing with outcomes in adult suffocation-related cardiac arrest

ResuscitationPublished

  • retrospective cohort study
  • Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)
  • prespecified subgroup analyses

Authors' conclusion

In suffocation-related OHCA, the type of bystander CPR was not associated with improved neurological recovery. These findings suggest that the type of bystander CPR alone may not be the primary determinant of recovery, although the relative contributions of CPR type, airway management, and other prehospital factors remain to be clarified.

Study context

Population
Adult patients with witnessed suffocation-related OHCA, All-Japan Utstein Registry (2005–2023), excluding cardiac-origin cases and those treated by EMS personnel
Participants
76,774 patients
Exposure
CCV-CPR and No cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) vs CC-CPR
  • CC-CPRn = 39,451reference
  • CCV-CPRn = 8,182
  • No CPRn = 29,141
Outcome
Favorable neurological status
Follow-up
One month

Main finding

As reported in the abstract

Each group vs CC-CPREstimate (95% CI)
No CPRAfter IPTW adjustment
adjusted OR 1.20(1.04–1.38)
CCV-CPRno significant difference
OR 1.01(0.78–1.32)

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Secondary outcomes

OutcomeCC-CPRCCV-CPRNo CPROR (95% CI)
One-month survival · secondary outcome8.3%7.2%9.5%1.20 (1.12–1.28)

ROSC · secondary outcome

One-month survival

No significant difference for CCV-CPR

Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)

No significant differences were observed for ROSC

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Findings were consistent in subgroup and sensitivity analyses using multiple imputation

Original publication

Association of rescue breathing with outcomes in adult suffocation-related cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. Published 26 June 2026. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2026.111189

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it