Acute cardiac care & resuscitation
Mechanical versus manual bag-valve ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with cardiac arrest: A systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis
Pooled result · ROSCResult — go to the resultPooled relative risk 1.20 95% CrI 1.04–1.42- systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis
- Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses
+1 more
- Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses
Authors' 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)
- Participants
- 6,847 Eight studies
- Comparison
- Mechanical ventilation (MV) use during CPR compared with manual BV
- Outcome
- ROSC
Pooled result
ROSC
Pooled relative risk
1.20
95% CrI 1.04–1.42
MV vs BV
pooled RR 1.20 (95% CrI 1.04–1.42)
As reported in the abstract
- posterior probability of benefit
- 99%
Further pooled results
Survival to admission, survival to discharge, favorable neurological outcome
- Posterior probability favoring MV for survival to admission
- 92.3%
- Posterior probability favoring MV for survival to discharge
- 93.6%
- Posterior probability favoring MV for favorable neurological outcome
- 92.2%
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.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it