Search

Introduction: An 80% chest compression fraction (CCF) during resuscitation is recommended. However, heterogeneous results in CCF studies were found during the 2015 Consensus on Science (CoS), which may be because chest compressions are stopped for a wide variety of reasons including providing lifesaving care, provider distraction, fatigue, confusion, and inability to perform lifesaving skills efficiently.Objective: The effect of confounding variables on CCF to predict cardiac arrest survival.Methods: A secondary analysis of emergency medical services (EMS) treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who received manual compressions. CCF (percent of time patients received compressions) was determined from electronic defibrillator files. Two Sample Wilcoxon Rank Sum or regression determined a statistical association between CCF and age, gender, bystander CPR, public location, witnessed arrest, shockable rhythm, resuscitation duration, study site, and number of shocks. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine CCF effect on survival.Results: Of 2132 patients with manual compressions 1997 had complete data. Shockable rhythm (p<0.001), public location (p<0.004), treatment duration (p<0.001), and number of shocks (p<0.001) were associated with lower CCF. Univariate logistic regression found that CCF was inversely associated with survival (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.36). Multivariate regression controlling for factors associated with survival and/or CCF found that increasing CCF was associated with survival (OR 6.34; 95% CI 1.02-39.5).Conclusion: CCF cannot be looked at in isolation as a predictor of survival, but in the context of other resuscitation activities. When controlling for the effects of other resuscitation activities, a higher CCF is predictive of survival. This may explain the heterogeneity of findings during the CoS review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Shorter manual chest compression pauses prior to defibrillation attempts is reported to improve the defibrillation success rate. Mechanical load-distributing band (LDB-) CPR enables shocks without compression pause. We studied pre-shock pause and termination of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia 5 s post-shock (TOF) and return of organized rhythm (ROOR) with LDB and manual (M-) CPR. Methods In a secondary analysis from the Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care trial, patients with initial shockable rhythm and interpretable post-shock rhythms were included. Pre-shock rhythm, pause duration (if any), and post-shock rhythm were obtained for each shock. Associations between TOF/ROOR and pre-shock pause duration, including no pause shocks with LDB-CPR, were analyzed with Chi-square test. A p -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results For TOF and ROOR analyses we included 417 LDB-CPR patients with 1476 and 1438 shocks, and 495 M-CPR patients with 1839 and 1796 shocks, respectively. For first shocks with LDB-CPR, pre-shock pause was associated with TOF ( p = 0.049) with lowest TOF (77%) for shocks given without pre-shock compression pause. This association was not significant when all shocks were included ( p = 0.07) and not for ROOR. With M-CPR there were no significant associations between shock-related chest compression pause duration and TOF or ROOR. Conclusion For first shocks with LDB-CPR, termination of fibrillation was associated with pre-shock pause duration. There was no association for the rate of return of organized rhythm. For M-CPR, where no shocks were given during continuous chest compressions, there were no associations between pre-shock pause duration and TOF or ROOR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Guidelines recommend 2 min of CPR after defibrillation attempts followed by ECG analysis during chest compression pause. This pause may reduce the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival. We have evaluated the possibility of analysing the rhythm earlier in the CPR cycle in an attempt to replace immediate pre-shock rhythm analysis. Methods and results The randomized Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC) trial included patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac aetiology. Defibrillator data were used to categorize ECG rhythms as shockable or non-shockable 1 min post-shock and immediately before next shock. ROSC was determined from end-tidal CO 2 , transthoracic impedance (TTI), and patient records. TTI was used to identify chest compressions. Artefact free ECGs were categorized during periods without chest compressions. Episodes without ECG or TTI data or with undeterminable ECG rhythm were excluded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Of 1657 patients who received 3409 analysable shocks, the rhythm was shockable in 1529 (44.9%) cases 1 min post-shock, 13 (0.9%) of which were no longer shockable immediately prior to next possible shock. Of these, three had converted to asystole, seven to PEA and three to ROSC. Conclusion While a shockable rhythm 1 min post-shock was present also immediately before next possible defibrillation attempt in most cases, three patients had ROSC. Studies are needed to document if moving the pre-shock rhythm analysis will increase shocks delivered to organized rhythms, and if it will increase shock success and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To compare integrated automated load distributing band CPR (iA-CPR) with high-quality manual CPR (M-CPR) to determine equivalence, superiority, or inferiority in survival to hospital discharge. Methods: Between March 5, 2009 and January 11, 2011 a randomized, unblinded, controlled group sequential trial of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of presumed cardiac origin was conducted at three US and two European sites. After EMS providers initiated manual compressions patients were randomized to receive either iA-CPR or M-CPR. Patient follow-up was until all patients were discharged alive or died. The primary outcome, survival to hospital discharge, was analyzed adjusting for covariates, (age, witnessed arrest, initial cardiac rhythm, enrollment site) and interim analyses. CPR quality and protocol adherence were monitored (CPR fraction) electronically throughout the trial. Results: Of 4753 randomized patients, 522 (11.0%) met post enrollment exclusion criteria. Therefore, 2099 (49.6%) received iA-CPR and 2132 (50.4%) M-CPR. Sustained ROSC (emergency department admittance), 24h survival and hospital discharge (unknown for 12 cases) for iA-CPR compared to M-CPR were 600 (28.6%) vs. 689 (32.3%), 456 (21.8%) vs. 532 (25.0%), 196 (9.4%) vs. 233 (11.0%) patients, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of survival to hospital discharge for iA-CPR compared to M-CPR, was 1.06 (95% CI 0.83–1.37), meeting the criteria for equivalence. The 20min CPR fraction was 80.4% for iA-CPR and 80.2% for M-CPR. Conclusion: Compared to high-quality M-CPR, iA-CPR resulted in statistically equivalent survival to hospital discharge. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]