Standard Chest Compression Research Articles

Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model.

Aim of the studyBystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm.MethodsWith the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs.ResultsThe total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21–53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups.ConclusionStandard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training.

A comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual compressions versus compressions with real-time audiovisual feedback: A randomized controlled pilot study.

Background:Strategies that improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guideline adherence may improve in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) outcomes. Real-time audiovisual feedback (AVF) is one strategy identified by the American Heart Association and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation as an area needing further investigation. The aim of this study was to determine if in patients with IHCA, does the addition of a free-standing AVF device to standard manual chest compressions during CPR improve sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rates (primary outcome) or CPR quality or guideline adherence (secondary outcomes).Methods:This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel study of patients undergoing resuscitation with chest compressions for IHCA in the mixed medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) of two academic teaching hospitals. Patients were randomized to receive either standard manual chest compressions or compressions using the Cardio First Angel™ feedback device.Results:Sixty-seven individuals were randomized, and 22 were included. CPR quality evaluation and guideline adherence scores were improved in the intervention group (P = 0.0005 for both). The incidence of ROSC was similar between groups (P = 0.64), as was survival to ICU discharge (P = 0.088) and survival to hospital discharge (P = 0.095).Conclusion:The use of the Cardio First Angel™ compression feedback device improved adherence to publish CPR guidelines and CPR quality. The insignificant change in rates of ROSC and survival to ICU or hospital discharge may have been related to small sample size. Further clinical studies comparing AVF devices to standard manual compressions are needed, as are device head-to-head comparisons.

Real-time audio-visual feedback with handheld nonautomated external defibrillator devices during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: A meta-analysis.

Objective:Restoring cardiopulmonary circulation with effective chest compression remains the cornerstone of resuscitation, yet real-time compressions may be suboptimal. This project aims to determine whether in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA; population), chest compressions performed with free-standing audiovisual feedback (AVF) device as compared to standard manual chest compression (comparison) results in improved outcomes, including the sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge (outcomes).Methods:Scholarly databases and relevant bibliographies were searched, as were clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings to limit publication bias. Studies were not limited by date, language, or publication status. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included that enrolled adults (age ≥ 18 years) with IHCA and assessed real-time chest compressions delivered with either the standard manual technique or with AVF from a freestanding device not linked to an automated external defibrillator (AED) or automated compressor.Results:Four clinical trials met inclusion criteria and were included. No ongoing trials were identified. One RCT assessed the Ambu CardioPump (Ambu Inc., Columbia, MD, USA), whereas three assessed Cardio First Angel™ (Inotech, Nubberg, Germany). No clinical RCTs compared AVF devices head-to-head. Three RCTs were multi-center. Sustained ROSC (4 studies, n = 1064) was improved with AVF use (Relative risk [RR] 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39–2.04), as was survival to hospital discharge (2 studies, n = 922; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.54–2.06) and survival to hospital discharge (3 studies, n = 984; RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.62–2.25).Conclusion:The moderate-quality evidence suggests that chest compressions performed using a non-AED free-standing AVF device during resuscitation for IHCA improves sustained ROSC and survival to ICU and hospital discharge.Trial Registration:PROSPERO (CRD42020157536).

Abstract 438: Synchronization of Chest Compressions During Pseudo Electro-Mechanical Dissociation Improves Blood Pressures Relative to Standard Chest Compressions

Introduction: The treatment of pseudo electro-mechanical dissociation (P-EMD) with standard chest compressions leads to periods where the chest compressions and heart-beat are in phase and periods where the chest compression and heart-beat are out of phase. We hypothesized that synchronized chest compressions will improve hemodynamics relative to standardized chest compressions during P-EMD. Methods: Eight animals underwent surgical preparation and were exposed to hypoxia to induce P-EMD. The treatment period was divided into eight 45 sec epochs during which the P-EMD was left untreated or was treated with standard chest compressions or chest compressions synchronized to the R-wave in the ECG. For each epoch of CPR in each animal, we measured the rate of change in the hemodynamics over the last half of the epoch using linear regression. ANOVA modeling was used to compare changes in hemodynamics as a function of treatment. Results: The rate of change in coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), minimum right atrial pressure (RAPmin), and maximum right atrial pressure (RAPmax) was larger during synchronized compressions than during standard compressions or untreated P-EMD. The rate of change in AOPmin was larger during both treatments than during untreated P-EMD. Other differences in the rate of change were not detected between standard chest compressions and untreated P-EMD. Numerical results are shown in the table below. RAPmax decreased over time, while the other measures increased. Conclusions: Synchronized chest compressions improved several blood pressure metrics over time during P-EMD, while standardized chest compressions only improved AOPmin. While some of the changes are modest, they were sustained over 20 seconds, suggesting that continued delivery of synchronized chest compressions could result in clinically meaningful improvement in blood pressures. Table 1. ANOVA comparison of blood pressures as a function of treatment

Abstract 439: Using the Time Interval Between R-Wave Detection and Maximum Compression Pressure to Target and Validate Delivery of Synchronized Chest Compressions During Pseudo Electro-Mechanical Dissociation

Introduction: The treatment of pseudo electro-mechanical dissociation (P-EMD) with standard chest compressions leads to some compressions that interfere with blood flow created by ventricular contraction and others that are synergistic. We have previously reported that the hemodynamics generated by standard chest compressions (StdCPR) depended on the time interval between the R-wave and the maximum compression pressure (t_int). Our goal was to use the t_int to identify the optimal timing for compression synchronization and to validate the delivery of synchronized chest compressions. Methods: Eight animals underwent surgical preparation and were exposed to hypoxia to induce P-EMD. The treatment period was divided into eight 45 sec epochs during which the P-EMD was left untreated or was treated with StdCPR or chest compressions synchronized to the R-wave in the ECG (SyncCPR). For each heart beat t_int was calculated as t peak AOP - t Rwave , blood pressures were averaged, and blood flows were integrated. 1,598 chest compressions were analyzed. The location of local extrema in hemodynamic parameters as a function of positive t_int values were identified recursively by dividing the range of t_int values into increasing numbers of bins and determining which bin had the highest mean value. Results: Blood flows and pressures exhibited a non-linear dependence on t_int. The maximum CPP occurred at t_int = 90 ±2.3 ms. The maximum aortic pressure occurred at t_int = 70 ±2.3 ms. The minimum right atrial pressure occurred at t_int = 280 ±2.3 ms. The maximum carotid blood flow occurred at t_int = 100 ±2.3 ms. The maximum jugular blood flow occurred at t_int = 400 ±2.3 ms. Unsynchronized chest compressions resulted in a t_int of -21 ± 170 ms. Synchronized chest compressions resulted in a t_int of 119 ± 13 ms. Conclusions: Local maxima and minima during StdCPR were identified in several hemodynamic parameters, but the extrema were not perfectly co-located. It appears that a t_int of 90-100 ms could be optimal. SyncCPR were delivered at 119 ms, which is not far from the local maxima observed for CPP and carotid blood flow.

Abstract 167: Epinephrine Plus Chest Compressions May Be Superior to Epinephrine Alone in a Hypoxia-Induced Porcine Model of Lifeless Shock

Background: Lifeless shock (LS) (previously called EMD and pseudo-PEA) is a global hypotensive ischemic state with retained coordinated myocardial contractile activity and an organized ECG. We have previously described our hypoxic LS model. The role of standard external chest compressions remains unclear in the setting of LS and its associated intrinsic hemodynamics. Although it is known the patients with LS have better prognosis compared to PEA, it is unclear what is the best treatment strategy. Prior work has shown that chest compressions (CC) when synchronized with native systole results in significant hemodynamic improvement, most notably coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), and hence it is plausible that standard dyssynchronous CC may be detrimental to hemodynamics. Furthermore, retrospective clinical data has shown that LS patients treated with vasopressors and no CC, may have better outcomes. We compared epinephrine only versus epinephrine and chest compression, in a porcine model of LS. Methods: Our porcine model of hypoxic LS has previously been described. We randomized pigs to episodes of LS treated with epinephrine only (control) (0.0015 mg/kg) versus epinephrine plus standard external chest compressions (intervention). Animals were endotracheally intubated and mechanically ventilated, and the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) was gradually lowered from room air (20-30% O 2 ) to a target FiO 2 of 3-7% O 2 . This target FiO 2 was maintained until the systolic blood pressure (SBP) dropped to 30 mmHg for 30 seconds, or the animal became bradycardic (HR less than 40), which was defined as the start of LS. FiO 2 was then raised to 100%, and then animal would receive control or intervention. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was defined as SBP 60 mmHg, stable after 2 minutes. Results: Twenty-six episodes of LS in 11 animals received epinephrine only control and 21 episodes the epinephrine plus chest compression intervention. The rates of ROSC in two minutes or less were 5/26 (19%) in the control arm vs 14/21 (67%) in the intervention arm (P=0.001;95% CI 19.7 %-67.2%). Conclusions: In a swine model of hypoxia induced LS, epinephrine plus CPR may be superior to epinephrine alone.

Efficacy and safety of active abdominal compression-decompression versus standard CPR for cardiac arrests: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 RCTs.

Active abdominal compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (AACD-CPR), which applies to cardiac arrests with contraindication of standard chest compressions (SCC) CPR, has been utilized in cardiac arrest. However, the efficacy and safety of AACD-CPR still remained controversy. This analysis was designed to comprehensively compare AACD versus SCC-CPR in patients with cardiac arrest. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CNKI up to April 22, 2019. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to compare outcomes of the groups. Our primary outcomes were restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and short-term survival. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. All statistical analyses were performed using standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.2 and Stata 12.0. A total of seventeen studies (N = 1647 patients) were identified for the present analysis. Compared with standard CPR, AACD-CPR was superior in restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and short-term survival, with pooled RRs of 1.38 (95% CI 1.23-1.55; P < 0.00001) and RRs of 2.05 (95% CI 1.69-2.50; P < 0.00001) respectively. In addition, significant superiority of AACD-CPR was found in incidence of fracture, long-term survival, pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2), coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) and adverse events. No significant difference was observed in incidence of vomiting. Generally, in this combined analysis we found a statistically significant improvement in survival and ROSC with the use of AACD-CPR as compared with the use of standard CPR. There was also significant improvement in incidence of fracture, long-term survival, PETCO2 and CPP with AACD-CPR in comparison with standard CPR; results were not statistically different between the groups regarding to vomiting rate and adverse events. The standardized, diversified and individualized methods of clinical operation of AACD-CPR need exploration and expectingly serve as a guideline for clinical application of AACD-CPR in the future.

Survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest After Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation or Chest Compressions Only Before Arrival of Emergency Medical Services: Nationwide Study During Three Guideline Periods.

In out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CO-CPR) has emerged as an alternative to standard CPR (S-CPR), using both chest compressions and rescue breaths. Since 2010, CPR guidelines recommend CO-CPR for both untrained bystanders and trained bystanders unwilling to perform rescue breaths. The aim of this study was to describe changes in the rate and type of CPR performed before the arrival of emergency medical services (EMS) during 3 consecutive guideline periods in correlation to 30-day survival. All bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests reported to the Swedish register for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 2000 to 2017 were included. Nonwitnessed, EMS-witnessed, and rescue breath-only CPR cases were excluded. Patients were categorized as receivers of no CPR (NO-CPR), S-CPR, or CO-CPR before EMS arrival. Guideline periods 2000 to 2005, 2006 to 2010, and 2011 to 2017 were used for comparisons over time. The primary outcome was 30-day survival. A total of 30 445 patients were included. The proportions of patients receiving CPR before EMS arrival changed from 40.8% in the first time period to 58.8% in the second period, and to 68.2% in the last period. S-CPR changed from 35.4% to 44.8% to 38.1%, and CO-CPR changed from 5.4% to 14.0% to 30.1%, respectively. Thirty-day survival changed from 3.9% to 6.0% to 7.1% in the NO-CPR group, from 9.4% to 12.5% to 16.2% in the S-CPR group, and from 8.0% to 11.5% to 14.3% in the CO-CPR group. For all time periods combined, the adjusted odds ratio for 30-day survival was 2.6 (95% CI, 2.4-2.9) for S-CPR and 2.0 (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) for CO-CPR, in comparison with NO-CPR. S-CPR was superior to CO-CPR (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4). In this nationwide study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during 3 periods of different CPR guidelines, there was an almost a 2-fold higher rate of CPR before EMS arrival and a concomitant 6-fold higher rate of CO-CPR over time. Any type of CPR was associated with doubled survival rates in comparison with NO-CPR. These findings support continuous endorsement of CO-CPR as an option in future CPR guidelines because it is associated with higher CPR rates and overall survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Real-time compression feedback for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest: a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial

ObjectiveTo determine if real-time compression feedback using a non-automated hand-held device improves patient outcomes from in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel study (no crossover) of patients with IHCA in the mixed medical–surgical intensive care units (ICUs) of eight academic hospitals. Patients received either standard manual chest compressions or compressions performed with real-time feedback using the Cardio First Angel™ (CFA) device. The primary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and secondary outcomes were survival to ICU and hospital discharge.ResultsOne thousand four hundred fifty-four subjects were randomized; 900 were included. Sustained ROSC was significantly improved in the CFA group (66.7% vs. 42.4%, P < 0.001), as was survival to ICU discharge (59.8% vs. 33.6%) and survival to hospital discharge (54% vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001). Outcomes were not affected by intra-group comparisons based on intubation status. ROSC, survival to ICU, and hospital discharge were noted to be improved in inter-group comparisons of non-intubated patients, but not intubated ones.ConclusionUse of the CFA compression feedback device improved event survival and survival to ICU and hospital discharge.Trial registrationThe study was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02845011), registered retrospectively on July 21, 2016.

Abstract 262: Hemodynamically-Guided Optimum Chest Compression Point in a Rat Model of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Introduction: CPR aims to re-establish blood flow by chest compression (CC), achieving threshold levels of coronary perfusion pressure (CPP). For this, current guidelines recommend the lower sternal half as optimum CC point. However, this point might be not optimal for every individual. We investigated the hemodynamics generated by CC performed on different chest points in a rat model of CPR. We hypothesized that a CC point hemodynamically-identified would be a better approach compared to the lower sternal half. Methods: Ten male rats were anesthetized and arterial and right atrial pressures monitored. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and untreated for 8 min. CPR, including mechanical CC, ventilation, and epinephrine, was then performed for 8 min. Animals were divided to receive CC performed either on the lower sternal half (standard (STD), n=5) or on an optimum point identified as the one able to generate the maximum CPP (MaxCPP group, n=5). Cardiac districts involved in CC were subsequently identified by computed tomography (CT). Results: STD CC produced a CPP that was constantly below the threshold for successful resuscitation and trended to decrease over time. When the optimum CC point was identified hemodynamically, the CPP generated was constantly &gt; 20 mmHg. Indeed, CPP was significantly higher in the MaxCPP group compared to the STD one for the whole 8 min of CPR (p&lt;0.01, Fig). Moreover, administration of epi rapidly further improved CPP (p&lt;0.01 vs. pre-epi) in the group with an optimized CC point, while no drug effect was observed in the STD one. CT scan showed that the lower sternal half did not correspond to the LV maximum diameter, known to account for a maximum stroke volume generation during CC (Fig). Conclusion: Standard lower sternal half CC point is not able to maximize hemodynamics during CPR, making ineffective CC efforts and vasopressor administration. The quality of CPR may improve if the optimum CC point is identified as a reflection of CPP generated.

Abstract 139: Impedance Threshold Device and Active Decompression Improve Hemodynamics in a Swine Model of Prolonged CPR

Introduction: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the impedance threshold device and active decompression (ITD-ACD CPR) has been shown to improve chest compression generated blood flow relative to standard chest compression. Using our high-fidelity swine model of cardiac arrest treated with prolonged mechanical chest compression (MCC) we studied the effect of different lift heights (amount of lift above the natural zero point of the sternum) during active decompression. Methods: CPR was performed on six domestic swine (~30 kg) using standard physiological monitoring. Flow was measured in the abdominal aorta, inferior vena cava (IVC), right common carotid and external jugular, and left femoral artery. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was electrically induced. MCC were started after ten minutes of VF. Four MCC waveforms were used: Standard CPR (2”, 100 CPM), and ITD-ACD CPR (2”, 80 CPM) with 0.5”, 1.0”, and 1.5” lift past the zero point. MCC waveforms were changed every 2 min in a crossover design and delivered for 56 minutes. Data were analyzed in CPR cycles which included four epochs of CPR, one of each waveform, constituting 8 minutes of compressions. Results: Lift height had a significant (p&lt;0.05) effect on carotid and jugular blood flow. Lift heights of 1.0 and 1.5” generated significantly more carotid blood flow in all 7 CPR cycles. A lift height of 1.5” generated significantly more jugular blood flow over all 7 CPR cycles. The interaction between duration of CPR and Jugular blood flow previously observed using this animal model was not observed. Carotid and jugular blood flow as a function of waveform and CPR cycle are shown in the figure. Conclusions: ITD-ACD CPR improved carotid and jugular blood flows, suggestive of improved cerebral perfusion. A lift height of 1.5” was required for significant improvement of jugular blood flows, while ITD-ACD CPR provided significantly better carotid blood flow than standard CPR at all lift heights.

Impedance threshold device and active decompression improve hemodynamics in prolonged CPR

Introduction: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the impedance threshold device and active decompression (ITD-ACD CPR) has been shown to improve chest compression generated blood flow relative to standard chest compression. Using our high-fidelity swine model of cardiac arrest treated with prolonged mechanical chest compression (MCC) we studied the effect of different lift heights during active decompression.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.

Mechanical chest compression devices have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). To assess the effectiveness of resuscitation strategies using mechanical chest compressions versus resuscitation strategies using standard manual chest compressions with respect to neurologically intact survival in patients who suffer cardiac arrest. On 19 August 2017 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science databases. Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts and Science Citation abstracts had been searched up to November 2009 for prior versions of this review. We also searched two clinical trials registries for any ongoing trials not captured by our search of databases containing published works: Clinicaltrials.gov (August 2017) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (January 2018). We applied no language restrictions. We contacted experts in the field of mechanical chest compression devices and manufacturers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-randomised studies comparing mechanical chest compressions versus manual chest compressions during CPR for patients with cardiac arrest. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included five new studies in this update. In total, we included 11 trials in the review, including data from 12,944 adult participants, who suffered either out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) or in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We excluded studies explicitly including patients with cardiac arrest caused by trauma, drowning, hypothermia and toxic substances. These conditions are routinely excluded from cardiac arrest intervention studies because they have a different underlying pathophysiology, require a variety of interventions specific to the underlying condition and are known to have a prognosis different from that of cardiac arrest with no obvious cause. The exclusions were meant to reduce heterogeneity in the population while maintaining generalisability to most patients with sudden cardiac death.The overall quality of evidence for the outcomes of included studies was moderate to low due to considerable risk of bias. Three studies (N = 7587) reported on the designated primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of one or two), which had moderate quality evidence. One study showed no difference with mechanical chest compressions (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.39), one study demonstrated equivalence (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.04), and one study demonstrated reduced survival (RR 0.41, CI 0.21 to 0.79). Two other secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission (N = 7224) and survival to hospital discharge (N = 8067), also had moderate quality level of evidence. No studies reported a difference in survival to hospital admission. For survival to hospital discharge, two studies showed benefit, four studies showed no difference, and one study showed harm associated with mechanical compressions. No studies demonstrated a difference in adverse events or injury patterns between comparison groups but the quality of data was low. Marked clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect. The evidence does not suggest that CPR protocols involving mechanical chest compression devices are superior to conventional therapy involving manual chest compressions only. We conclude on the balance of evidence that mechanical chest compression devices used by trained individuals are a reasonable alternative to manual chest compressions in settings where consistent, high-quality manual chest compressions are not possible or dangerous for the provider (eg, limited rescuers available, prolonged CPR, during hypothermic cardiac arrest, in a moving ambulance, in the angiography suite, during preparation for extracorporeal CPR [ECPR], etc.). Systems choosing to incorporate mechanical chest compression devices should be closely monitored because some data identified in this review suggested harm. Special attention should be paid to minimising time without compressions and delays to defibrillation during device deployment.

Haemodynamic outcomes during piston-based mechanical CPR with or without active decompression in a porcine model of cardiac arrest

BackgroundExperimental active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR is associated with increased haemodynamic outcomes compared to standard mechanical chest compressions. Since no clinically available mechanical chest compression device is capable of ACD-CPR, we modified the LUCAS 2 (Physio-Control, Lund, Sweden) to deliver ACD-CPR, hypothesising it would improve haemodynamic outcomes compared with standard LUCAS CPR on pigs with cardiac arrest.MethodsThe modified LUCAS delivering 5 cm compressions with or without 2 cm active decompression above anatomical chest level was studied in a randomized crossover design on 19 Norwegian domestic pigs. VF was electrically induced and untreated for 2 min. Each pig received ACD-CPR and standard mechanical CPR in three 180-s. phases. We measured aortic, right atrial, coronary perfusion, intracranial and oesophageal pressure, cerebral and carotid blood flow and cardiac output. Two-sided paired samples t-test was used for continuous parametric data and Wilcoxon test for non-parametric data. P < 0.05 was considered significant.ResultsDue to injuries/device failure, the experimental protocol was completed in nine of 19 pigs. Cardiac output (l/min, median, (25, 75-percentiles): 1.5 (1.1, 1.7) vs. 1.1 (0.8, 1.5), p < 0.01), cerebral blood flow (AU, 297 vs. 253, mean difference: 44, 95% CI; 14–74, p = 0.01), and carotid blood flow (l/min, median, (25, 75-percentiles): 97 (70, 106) vs. 83 (57, 94), p < 0.01) were higher during ACD-CPR compared to standard mechanical CPR. Coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) trended towards higher in end decompression phase.ConclusionCardiac output and brain blood flow improved with mechanical ACD-CPR and CPP trended towards higher during end-diastole compared to standard LUCAS CPR.

Addition of Audiovisual Feedback During Standard Compressions Is Associated with Improved Ability.

IntroductionA benefit of in-hospital cardiac arrest is the opportunity for rapid initiation of “high-quality” chest compressions as defined by current American Heart Association (AHA) adult guidelines as a depth 2–2.4 inches, full chest recoil, rate 100–120 per minute, and minimal interruptions with a chest compression fraction (CCF) ≥ 60%. The goal of this study was to assess the effect of audiovisual feedback on the ability to maintain high-quality chest compressions as per 2015 updated guidelines.MethodsNinety-eight participants were randomized into four groups. Participants were randomly assigned to perform chest compressions with or without use of audiovisual feedback (+/− AVF). Participants were further assigned to perform either standard compressions with a ventilation ratio of 30:2 to simulate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without an advanced airway or continuous chest compressions to simulate CPR with an advanced airway. The primary outcome measured was ability to maintain high-quality chest compressions as defined by current 2015 AHA guidelines.ResultsOverall comparisons between continuous and standard chest compressions (n=98) were without significant differences in chest compression dynamics (p’s >0.05). Overall comparisons between +/− AVF (n = 98) were significant for differences in average rate of compressions per minute (p= 0.0241) and proportion of chest compressions within guideline rate recommendations (p = 0.0084). There was a significant difference in the proportion of high quality-chest compressions favoring AVF (p = 0.0399). Comparisons between chest compression strategy groups +/− AVF were significant for differences in compression dynamics favoring AVF (p’s < 0.05).ConclusionOverall, AVF is associated with greater ability to maintain high-quality chest compressions per most-recent AHA guidelines. Specifically, AVF was associated with a greater proportion of compressions within ideal rate with standard chest compressions while demonstrating a greater proportion of compressions with simultaneous ideal rate and depth with a continuous compression strategy.

Is there any alternative to standard chest compression techniques in infants? A randomized manikin trial of the new "2-thumb-fist" option.

Background:Pediatric cardiac arrest is a fatal emergent condition that is associated with high mortality, permanent neurological injury, and is a socioeconomic burden at both the individual and national levels. The aim of this study was to test in an infant manikin a new chest compression (CC) technique (“2 thumbs-fist” or nTTT) in comparison with standard 2-finger (TFT) and 2-thumb-encircling hands techniques (TTEHT).Methods:This was prospective, randomized, crossover manikin study. Sixty-three nurses who performed a randomized sequence of 2-minute continuous CC with the 3 techniques in random order. Simulated systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse pressures (PP, SBP–DBP) in mm Hg were measured.Results:The nTTT resulted in a higher median SBP value (69 [IQR, 63–74] mm Hg) than TTEHT (41.5 [IQR, 39–42] mm Hg), (P < .001) and TFT (26.5 [IQR, 25.5–29] mm Hg), (P <.001). The simulated median value of DBP was 20 (IQR, 19–20) mm Hg with nTTT, 18 (IQR, 17–19) mm Hg with TTEHT and 23.5 (IQR, 22–25.5) mm Hg with TFT. DBP was significantly higher with TFT than with TTEHT (P <.001), as well as with TTEHT than nTTT (P <.001). Median values of simulated MAP were 37 (IQR, 34.5–38) mm Hg with nTTT, 26 (IQR, 25–26) mm Hg with TTEHT and 24.5 (IQR,23.5–26.5) mm Hg with TFT. A statistically significant difference was noticed between nTTT and TFT (P <.001), nTTT and TTEHT (P <.001), and between TTEHT and TFT (P <.001). Sixty-one subjects (96.8%) preferred the nTTT over the 2 standard methods.Conclusions:The new nTTT technique achieved higher SBP and MAP compared to the standard CC techniques in our infant manikin model. nTTT appears to be a suitable alternative or complementary to the TFT and TTEHT.

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device.DesignRandomised controlled manikin trial.SettingLarge teaching hospital in the UK.ParticipantsTwenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating...

Lifeline ARM is more effective than manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation during ambulance transport: A prospective randomized crossover manikin trial

Purpose: According to the 2015 European Resuscitation Council guidelines, the quality of external chest compressions (CCs) is a key element improving the outcome in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, as indicated in many studies, the performance of CPR is highly variable [ 1 Kurowski A. Szarpak Ł. Bogdański Ł. Zaśko P. Czyżewski Ł. Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices. Kardiol Pol. 2015; 73(10): 924-930https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2015.0084 Crossref Scopus (30) Google Scholar , 2 Abelairas-Gómez C. Barcala-Furelos R. Szarpak Ł. García-García Ó. Paz-Domínguez Á. López-García S. et al. The effect of strength training on quality of prolonged basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Kardiol Pol. 2017; 75(1): 21-27https://doi.org/10.5603/KP.a2016.0165 Crossref Scopus (25) Google Scholar ]. Our aim was to examine if CCs were more effective with the use of newly developed mechanical CC device, Lifeline ARM (ARM) as compared with standard manual CCs.

Flowchart-assisted resuscitation. Standard CPR vs. chest compressions only: What happened to the quality?

Flowchart-assisted resuscitation. Standard CPR vs. chest compressions only: What happened to the quality?

The cost-effectiveness of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

AimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of LUCAS-2, a mechanical device for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as compared to manual chest compressions in adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. MethodsWe analysed patient-level data from a large, pragmatic, multi-centre trial linked to administrative secondary care data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to measure healthcare resource use, costs and outcomes in both arms. A within-trial analysis using quality adjusted life years derived from the EQ-5D-3L was conducted at 12-month follow-up and results were extrapolated to the lifetime horizon using a decision-analytic model. Results4471 patients were enrolled in the trial (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group). At 12 months, 89 (5%) patients survived in the LUCAS-2 group and 175 (6%) survived in the manual CPR group. In the vast majority of analyses conducted, both within-trial and by extrapolation of the results over a lifetime horizon, manual CPR dominates LUCAS-2. In other words, patients in the LUCAS-2 group had poorer health outcomes (i.e. lower QALYs) and incurred higher health and social care costs. ConclusionOur study demonstrates that the use of the mechanical chest compression device LUCAS-2 represents poor value for money when compared to standard manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.