Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial.
BACKGROUND
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.


OBJECTIVE
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.


METHODS
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.


METHODS
Standard EMS care for cardiac arrest with an LDB-CPR device (n = 554) or manual CPR (n = 517).


METHODS
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.


RESULTS
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).


CONCLUSIONS
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.


BACKGROUND
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965.
Hallstrom
Al
A
Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. aph@u.washington.edu
Rea
Thomas D
TD
Sayre
Michael R
MR
Christenson
James
J
Anton
Andy R
AR
Mosesso
Vince N
VN
Van Ottingham
Lois
L
Olsufka
Michele
M
Pennington
Sarah
S
White
Lynn J
LJ
Yahn
Stephen
S
Husar
James
J
Morris
Mary F
MF
Cobb
Leonard A
LA
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016887:Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D004632:Emergency Medical Services; D005260:Female; D006323:Heart Arrest / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016019:Survival Analysis