Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may improve both cardiac and brain resuscitation following cardiac arrest. Compared with manual chest compression, an automated load-distributing band (LDB) chest compression device produces greater blood flow to vital organs and may improve resuscitation outcomes. OBJECTIVE To compare resuscitation outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when an automated LDB-CPR device was added to standard emergency medical services (EMS) care with manual CPR. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Multicenter, randomized trial of patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States and Canada. The a priori primary population was patients with cardiac arrest that was presumed to be of cardiac origin and that had occurred prior to the arrival of EMS personnel. Initial study enrollment varied by site, ranging from late July to mid November 2004; all sites halted study enrollment on March 31, 2005. INTERVENTION Standard EMS care for cardiac arrest with an LDB-CPR device (n = 554) or manual CPR (n = 517). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was survival to 4 hours after the 911 call. Secondary end points were survival to hospital discharge and neurological status among survivors. RESULTS Following the first planned interim monitoring conducted by an independent data and safety monitoring board, study enrollment was terminated. No difference existed in the primary end point of survival to 4 hours between the manual CPR group and the LDB-CPR group overall (N = 1071; 29.5% vs 28.5%; P = .74) or among the primary study population (n = 767; 24.7% vs 26.4%, respectively; P = .62). However, among the primary population, survival to hospital discharge was 9.9% in the manual CPR group and 5.8% in the LDB-CPR group (P = .06, adjusted for covariates and clustering). A cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge was recorded in 7.5% of patients in the manual CPR group and in 3.1% of the LDB-CPR group (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS Use of an automated LDB-CPR device as implemented in this study was associated with worse neurological outcomes and a trend toward worse survival than manual CPR. Device design or implementation strategies require further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965.

[1]  J. Niemann.  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation. , 1992, New England Journal of Medicine.

[2]  W. Rogers.  Regression standard errors in clustered samples , 1994 .

[3]  E. John Gallagher,et al.  Effectiveness of Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Survival Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , 1995 .

[4]  L. Ekström,et al.  Prognosis among survivors of prehospital cardiac arrest. , 1995, Annals of emergency medicine.

[5]  E. Gallagher,et al.  Effectiveness of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. , 1996, JAMA.

[6]  W A Watson,et al.  Hawthorne effect: implications for prehospital research. , 1995, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  S. Thomas,et al.  Decay in quality of closed-chest compressions over time. , 1995, Annals of emergency medicine.

[8]  F J Ochoa,et al.  The effect of rescuer fatigue on the quality of chest compressions. , 1998, Resuscitation.

[9]  M. Copass,et al.  Influence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation prior to defibrillation in patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation , 1999, JAMA.

[10]  R L Williams,et al.  A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster‐Correlated Data , 2000, Biometrics.

[11]  Robert A. Berg,et al.  Importance of Continuous Chest Compressions During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Improved Outcome During a Simulated Single Lay-Rescuer Scenario , 2002, Circulation.

[12]  P. Wills,et al.  Improving the effectiveness of continuous closed chest compressions: an exploratory study. , 2002, Resuscitation.

[13]  Wanchun Tang,et al.  Adverse Outcomes of Interrupted Precordial Compression During Automated Defibrillation , 2002, Circulation.

[14]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[15]  Lance B Becker,et al.  Resuscitation after cardiac arrest: a 3-phase time-sensitive model. , 2002, JAMA.

[16]  R. Vukmir.  Survival And Outcome From Prehospital Cardiac Arrest , 2003 .

[17]  I. Stiell,et al.  Health-Related Quality of Life Is Better for Cardiac Arrest Survivors Who Received Citizen Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , 2003, Circulation.

[18]  Luke B Connelly,et al.  Balancing the number and size of sites: an economic approach to the optimal design of cluster samples. , 2003, Controlled clinical trials.

[19]  Audrius Paskevicius,et al.  The critical importance of minimal delay between chest compressions and subsequent defibrillation: a haemodynamic explanation. , 2003, Resuscitation.

[20]  T. Anderson,et al.  Preconditioning and the oxidants of sudden death. , 2003, Current opinion in critical care.

[21]  S. Timerman,et al.  Improved hemodynamics with a novel chest compression device during treatment of inhospital cardiac arrest , 2003 .

[22]  T. Rea,et al.  Temporal Trends in Sudden Cardiac Arrest: A 25-Year Emergency Medical Services Perspective , 2003, Circulation.

[23]  D. DeMets,et al.  Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim result is promising , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  D. Cone,et al.  Delaying defibrillation to give basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation to patients with out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation: A randomized trial , 2004 .

[25]  John E Billi,et al.  Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update and simplification of the Utstein templates for resuscitation registries: a statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (American Heart Association, European , 2004, Circulation.

[26]  Michael Casner,et al.  THE IMPACT OF A NEW CPR ASSIST DEVICE ON RATE OF RETURN OF SPONTANEOUS CIRCULATION IN OUT-OF-HOSPITAL CARDIAC ARREST , 2005, Prehospital Emergency Care.

[27]  B. Abella,et al.  Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. , 2005, JAMA.

[28]  G. Ewy.  Cardiocerebral Resuscitation: The New Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , 2005, Circulation.

[29]  Jo Kramer-Johansen,et al.  Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest , 2005 .

[30]  B. Stephens,et al.  Autopsy artifact created by the Revivant AutoPulse resuscitation device. , 2005, Journal of forensic sciences.

[31]  A Comparison of Standard Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus the Autopulse Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Device , 2005 .

[32]  M. Roth,et al.  H2S Induces a Suspended Animation–Like State in Mice , 2005, Science.

[33]  A. Hallstrom,et al.  Pre-randomization and de-randomization in emergency medical research: new names and rigorous criteria for old methods. , 2005, Resuscitation.

[34]  M. Rezaee,et al.  Augmentation of tissue perfusion by a novel compression device increases neurologically intact survival in a porcine model of prolonged cardiac arrest. , 2006, Resuscitation.