Active compression-decompression resuscitation: effect on resuscitation success after in-hospital cardiac arrest. A comparison of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and active compression-decompression resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. French Active Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Study Group. Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a population-based, prospective randomised clinical trial in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not improve survival in patients with prehospital cardiac arrest in a physician-manned emergency medical system. The Ontario trial of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital and prehospital cardiac arrest. The United Kingdom pre-hospital study of active compression-decompression resuscitation. External cardiac compression. A randomized comparison of mechanical and manual techniques. Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. A randomized clinical trial of active compression-decompression CPR vs standard CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in two cities.
The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that active compression-decompression would improve resuscitation success in human subjects after cardiac arrest.
                Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a new method that improves cardiopulmonary hemodynamic function in animal models and humans after cardiac arrest.
                We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients were assigned to receive standard manual or active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The primary study end points were spontaneous return of circulation, 24-h survival and survival to hospital discharge.
                Fifty-three consecutive patients after cardiac arrest undergoing 64 resuscitation attempts were studied (30 women, 23 men; mean [+/- SD] age 71 +/- 13 years, range 38 to 96). Spontaneous return of circulation was observed in 24 (47%) of 53 patients and was increased in patients receiving active compression-decompression compared with those receiving standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (15 [60%] of 25 vs. 9 [32%] of 28, respectively, p = 0.042); 24-h survival was increased (12 [48%] of 25 vs. 6 [21%] of 28, respectively, p = 0.041); and there was a trend toward improved survival to hospital discharge (6 [24%] of 25 vs. 3 [11%] of 28, respectively, p = 0.198) when active compression-decompression was compared with standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
                Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves return of spontaneous circulation and 24-h survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation appears to be a beneficial adjunct to standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We previously observed that short-term survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was greater with active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than with standard CPR. In the current study, we assessed the effects of the active compression-decompression method on one-year survival.
                Patients who had cardiac arrest in the Paris metropolitan area or in Thionville, France, more than 80 percent of whom had asystole, were assigned to receive either standard CPR (377 patients) or active compression-decompression CPR (373 patients) according to whether their arrest occurred on an even or odd day of the month, respectively. The primary end point was survival at one year. The rate of survival to hospital discharge without neurologic impairment and the neurologic outcome were secondary end points.
                Both the rate of hospital discharge without neurologic impairment (6 percent vs. 2 percent, P=0.01) and the one-year survival rate (5 percent vs. 2 percent, P=0.03) were significantly higher among patients who received active compression-decompression CPR than among those who received standard CPR. All patients who survived to one year had cardiac arrests that were witnessed. Nine of 17 one-year survivors in the active compression-decompression group and 2 of 7 in the standard group, respectively, initially had asystole or pulseless electrical activity. In 12 of the 17 survivors who had received active compression-decompression CPR, neurologic status returned to base line, as compared with 3 of 7 survivors who had received standard CPR (P=0.34).
                Active compression-decompression CPR performed during advanced life support significantly improved long-term survival rates among patients who had cardiac arrest outside the hospital. Different mechanical devices have been developed to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this study was to evaluate active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR applied by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) in a defined population. The Trondheim region EMS (population 154,000) employs simultaneous paramedic and physician response. Upon decision to treat, patients with cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac origin were allocated to ACD CPR (CardioPump) or standard CPR by drawing a random number tag. Outcome in each patient was determined on a 5 point ordinal scale (no clinical improvement = 1, survival to discharge = 5). In 4 years, CPR was attempted in a total of 431 cardiac arrests, 54 patients (13%) survived to discharge; 302 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomised. The prevalence of bystander CPR was 57% and the median call-arrival interval 9 min. By intention to treat, the mean score in the standard CPR group was 2.51 and 17/145 patients (12%) survived. The mean score in the ACD CPR group was 2.53 (P = 0.9) and 20/157 patients (13%) survived. Cerebral outcome was similar in the two groups. Among the 145 ACD patients, the technique was successfully applied in 110, found inapplicable in 35 and in seven patients chest compressions were unnecessary. This is the largest, single-centre, randomised, population based study of ACD CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to date. Even when considering a wider outcome spectrum than crude survival, we found no evidence of clinical benefit. In a quarter of cases ACD CPR was inapplicable, further limiting its potential usefulness. To examine the efficacy of a new method of cardiac resuscitation, active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD CPR), in prehospital cardiac arrest.
                Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
                Physician-manned Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU) of a university hospital, serving a population of 200,000.
                Adult patients with prehospital nontraumatic cardiac arrest treated by the MICU.
                Patients were randomized to standard chest compression according to American Heart Association (AHA) recommendations (group 1, 30 patients) or to the new technique (group 2, 26 patients). ACD was performed by use of a hand-held suction device. In both groups, advanced life support was performed as recommended by the AHA.
                Rate of patients regaining a spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hospital discharge rate, and mean carbon dioxide content during resuscitation were recorded. ROSC rates in groups 1 and 2 were 40% and 38.5%, respectively. Four patients (13.3%) in group 1 and three patients (11.5%) in group 2 were discharged (group 1 v group 2: n.s.). Anatomic conditions precluded the application of ACD CPR in 5 patients. The new technique was found to impose greater physical efforts than STD CPR. Capnography was performed in 23 patients (mean value: STD CPR: 11.9 +/- 4.7 mmHg, ACD CPR: 13.7 +/- 4.9 mmHg [n.s.]).
                ACD CPR did not improve, outcome and practical performance was complicated. Therefore, this technique should not be performed routinely, or without strict supervision in prehospital cardiac arrest. To compare the impact of active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and standard CPR on the outcomes of in-hospital and prehospital victims of cardiac arrest.
                Randomized controlled trial with blinding of allocation using a sealed container.
                (1) Emergency departments, wards, and intensive care units of 5 university hospitals and (2) all locations outside hospitals in 2 midsized cities.
                A total of 1784 adults who had cardiac arrest.
                Patients received either standard or ACD CPR throughout resuscitation.
                Survival for 1 hour and to hospital discharge and the modified Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
                All characteristics were similar in the standard and ACD CPR groups for the 773 in-hospital patients and the 1011 prehospital patients. For in-hospital patients, there were no significant differences between the standard (n = 368) and ACD (n = 405) CPR groups in survival for 1 hour (35.1% vs 34.6%; P = .89), in survival until hospital discharge (11.4% vs 10.4%; P = .64), or in the median MMSE score of survivors (37 in both groups). For patients who collapsed outside the hospital, there were also no significant differences between the standard (n = 510) and ACD (n = 501) CPR groups in survival for 1 hour (16.5% vs 18.2%; P = .48), in survival to hospital discharge (3.7% vs 4.6%; P = .49), or in the median MMSE score of survivors (35 in both groups). Exploration of clinically important subgroups failed to identify any patients who appeared to benefit from ACD CPR.
                ACD CPR did not improve survival or neurologic outcomes in any group of patients with cardiac arrest. This prospective, controlled trial with crossover group design compares the effectiveness of active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and standard CPR on the outcomes of victims of prehospital cardiac arrest. In three UK cities, victims of non-traumatic, out of hospital cardiac arrest, over the age of 8 years received either standard or ACD-CPR on arrival of ambulance personnel. Main outcome measures were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to be admitted to the intensive care unit, survival to hospital discharge, and neurological outcome. A total of 576 patients (STD-CPR, n=309; ACD-CPR, n=267) were analysed. The treatment groups were similar with respect to age, gender, proportion of witnessed arrests, initial cardiac rhythm, and call to advanced life support interval. The proportion of patients receiving bystander CPR was higher in the ACD group (37.1% vs. 28.5%; P=0.028). The interval between collapse and defibrillation was longer in the ACD group (12.3 min vs. 10.4 min; P=0.028). There was no difference between the STD-CPR and ACD-CPR groups in survival to admission to the intensive care unit (13.6% vs. 13.8%; P=0.93) or hospital discharge (4.8% vs. 6.0%; P=0.67). There was no difference between the groups with respect to the neurological outcome of those patients surviving to hospital discharge. Analysis of important subgroups also showed no benefit for ACD-CPR. We conclude that there was no improvement in outcome with ACD-CPR when used by ambulance personnel in Cardiff and Portsmouth. To compare the effectiveness of manual and mechanical chest compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 50 patients who suffered cardiac arrest were randomly allocated to receive manual or mechanical chest compression. Randomization was performed after failure of initial resuscitative measures but within ten minutes after the onset of cardiac arrest (mean, 6.4 +/- 1.2 min). Ten patients from each group survived longer than one hour following resuscitation. Three from the mechanical group and two from the manual group were eventually able to leave the hospital. Thus mechanical compression appears comparable with manual compression when manual compression is performed under ideal conditions. Mechanical chest compression may be employed when trained personnel are not readily available or where manual compression is technically difficult to perform. 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.
                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.
                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.
                Standard EMS care for cardiac arrest with an LDB-CPR device (n = 554) or manual CPR (n = 517).
                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.
                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).
                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.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965. To compare the effectiveness of active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with a handheld suction device vs standard manual CPR in victims of out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest.
                Prospective randomized clinical trial with crossover group design.
                Emergency medical services (EMS) of a large (San Francisco) and medium-sized (Fresno) city in California.
                All normothermic adult victims of out-of-hospital, nontraumatic cardiac arrest on whom CPR was performed by first responders.
                Patients were randomized to receive either standard manual CPR according to American Heart Association guidelines or ACD CPR, on first-responder contact.
                Return of spontaneous circulation, admission to the intensive care unit, survival to hospital discharge, and neurological function at hospital discharge.
                The ACD group (n = 117 in Fresno; n = 297 in San Francisco) and standard group (n = 136 in Fresno; n = 310 in San Francisco) were similar with regard to demographic and prognostic variables, such as age, witnessed arrest and bystander CPR frequency, and initial cardiac rhythm. Average interval from 911 call activation to EMS responder arrival was 6.4 minutes in Fresno and 4.0 minutes in San Francisco. In Fresno, there was no difference between the ACD group and standard CPR group in return of spontaneous circulation (17% vs 20%; P = .68), hospital admission (16% vs 20%; P = .56), hospital discharge (5% vs 7%; P = .64), or cerebral performance category score at discharge (1.5 vs 1.6; P = .90). Similarly, in San Francisco there was no difference between the ACD group and standard CPR group in return of spontaneous circulation (19% vs 21%; P = .65), hospital admission (13.5% vs 14.5%; P = .79), hospital discharge (4.7% vs 5.5%; P = .80), or cerebral performance category score at discharge (2.2 vs 2.6; P = .31). There was no increase in significant complications associated with the use of ACD CPR.
                There was no improvement in outcome with ACD CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in these two cities. Differences in study design, demographics, EMS systems, response intervals, training, and technique performance may contribute to the lack of improvement in initial resuscitation with ACD CPR compared with previous studies. Future research needs to control these variables to determine the reason for these differences in outcome.
Active chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.