Acute cardiac care & resuscitationMeta-analysis
Volume-controlled mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- systematic review and meta-analysis
- Randomized trials and non-randomized studies
- RoB2 and ROBINS-I risk of bias
- GRADE
Authors' 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 airway13 articles: six trials and seven non-randomized studies · six trials 461 · seven non-randomized studies 4,607
- Comparison
- volume-controlled vs manual ventilation
Pooled result
return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)
Odds ratio
1.31
95% CI 0.64–2.71
volume-controlled vs manual ventilation
odds ratio 1.31 (95% CI 0.64–2.71)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
Comparisons to pressure-controlled and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)-specific modes
- limited to a single trial each, with uncertain results
Study selection
- abstracts screened
- 12,004
- No study reported data on children
Risk of bias and certainty
- Randomized trials at low to high risk of bias
- Non-randomized studies at serious or critical risk of bias
- Certainty of evidence very low to low across comparisons
Original publication
Volume-controlled mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. Published 3 July 2026. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2026.111199
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it