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]