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]

Introduction: Animal studies indicate higher termination of VF/VT (TOF) rates after shocks delivered during the decompression phase of the compression cycle for manual and mechanical CPR. We investigated TOF for shocks delivered in different compression cycle phases during load distributing band (LDB) mechanical CPR in the CIRC trial.Methods: Shocks were retrospectively categorized as delivered during the compression, decompression, or relaxation phase of LDB compressions using transthoracic impedance data. Shocks delivered when the LDB device was paused, were used as controls. The first shock and the first up-to-three shocks (first shocks plus shocks two and three if given) from patients with initial VF/VT and LDB CPR prior to shock were grouped according to compression cycle phase. TOF rates for these groups versus the control group were analyzed using logistic regression for first shocks and the general estimating equations (GEE) model for the up-to-three shocks. Adjustments were made for bystander CPR, witnessed arrest, defibrillator shock energy and transthoracic impedance.Results: Among 244 first shocks and 685 up-to-three shocks TOF success rates were lower (p<0.05 and p<0.02) for shocks given during the compression phase (72% and 71% respectively) than for control shocks given during compression pauses (86% and 82% respectively). Decompression and relaxation phase shocks had TOF rates not different from the controls.Conclusion: Shocks delivered in the compression phase of LDB chest compressions had lower TOF rates than shocks delivered while pausing the LDB device. More research is needed to see how defibrillation during chest compressions affect ROSC and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]