Dataset Information

Classification of cardiopulmonary resuscitation chest compression patterns: manual versus automated approaches.

ABSTRACT: New chest compression detection technology allows for the recording and graphical depiction of clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions. The authors sought to determine the inter-rater reliability of chest compression pattern classifications by human raters. Agreement with automated chest compression classification was also evaluated by computer analysis.This was an analysis of chest compression patterns from cardiac arrest patients enrolled in the ongoing Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Continuous Chest Compressions Trial. Thirty CPR process files from patients in the trial were selected. Using written guidelines, research coordinators from each of eight participating ROC sites classified each chest compression pattern as 30:2 chest compressions, continuous chest compressions (CCC), or indeterminate. A computer algorithm for automated chest compression classification was also developed for each case. Inter-rater agreement between manual classifications was tested using Fleiss's kappa. The criterion standard was defined as the classification assigned by the majority of manual raters. Agreement between the automated classification and the criterion standard manual classifications was also tested.The majority of the eight raters classified 12 chest compression patterns as 30:2, 12 as CCC, and six as indeterminate. Inter-rater agreement between manual classifications of chest compression patterns was ? = 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.74). The automated computer algorithm classified chest compression patterns as 30:2 (n = 15), CCC (n = 12), and indeterminate (n = 3). Agreement between automated and criterion standard manual classifications was ? = 0.84 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.95).In this study, good inter-rater agreement in the manual classification of CPR chest compression patterns was observed. Automated classification showed strong agreement with human ratings. These observations support the consistency of manual CPR pattern classification as well as the use of automated approaches to chest compression pattern analysis.

SUBMITTER: Wang HE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4329029 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Classification of cardiopulmonary resuscitation chest compression patterns: manual versus automated approaches.

Wang Henry E HE Schmicker Robert H RH Herren Heather H Brown Siobhan S Donnelly John P JP Gray Randal R Ragsdale Sally S Gleeson Andrew A Byers Adam A Jasti Jamie J Aguirre Christina C Owens Pam P Condle Joe J Leroux Brian B

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20150129 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>New chest compression detection technology allows for the recording and graphical depiction of clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) chest compressions. The authors sought to determine the inter-rater reliability of chest compression pattern classifications by human raters. Agreement with automated chest compression classification was also evaluated by computer analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>This was an analysis of chest compression patterns from cardiac arrest patients enrol ...[more]

PMID: 25639554

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOur goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000-October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting.ResultsA total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates' summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance.ConclusionMechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.

Project description:AimPropose new metrics of impulsiveness of manual chest compressions (CCs) that account for shape and duration, separate the characteristics of the compressive part of the CC cycle from those of the recoil part, and are uncorrelated to CC depth and rate.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest monitor-defibrillator recordings having CPR data. Specifically, episodes of adult patients with ≥ 1000 compressions free of leaning were examined. CCs were obtained from the depth signal of the valid episodes, and we calculated the novel metrics: compression area index (CAI), recoil area index (RAI), compression impulsiveness index (CII) and recoil impulsiveness index (RII). Generalized linear mixed-effects models and Jonckheere-Terpstra trend analyses were employed to measure differences between populations and trends, and the absolute value of Pearson's correlation coefficient |r| was used to report dependence between variables. Statistics are reported as median and interquartile range.ResultsWe analyzed 982,340 CCs corresponding to 453 episodes, for which we calculated their CAI, RAI and duty cycle (DC). We analyzed the metrics for various populations: age, sex, any ROSC achieved and disposition, and found that CAI was significantly different according to patient disposition and RAI relative to age and sex (p<0.05). None of the metrics was correlated strongly to depth or rate (|r| values of 0.22 or smaller), and all of them varied for CC series corresponding to the same rescuer over the course of resuscitation (ptrend<0.05). However, we observed that the metrics are not balanced, in that for any value of DC, CAI and RAI span almost their entire ranges.ConclusionThe proposed metrics correctly and completely describe manual CC waveforms, improve upon the DC, since they depend on the signal waveform, and provide additional information to current indicators of quality CPR, depth and rate. Furthermore, they allow to differentiate the compressive and recoil parts of the CC cycle, reflecting influence of the rescuer (via CAI or CII) and of the biomechanics of the patient's chest (via RAI or RII). Thus, they have the potential to contribute to better understanding CPR dynamics and, eventually, to enhanced quality of CPR practice as additional indicators of proper manual CC technique.

Project description:IntroductionCardiac arrest is a leading cause of death in industrialised countries. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines follow the principles of closed chest compression as described for the first time in 1960. Mechanical CPR devices are designed to improve chest compression quality, thus considering the improvement of resuscitation outcomes. This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis methodology to assess trials investigating the therapeutic effect of automated mechanical CPR devices at the rate of return of spontaneous circulation, neurological state and secondary endpoints (including short-term and long-term survival, injuries and surrogate parameters for CPR quality) in comparison with manual chest compressions in adults with cardiac arrest.Methods and analysisA sensitive search strategy will be employed in established bibliographic databases from inception until the date of search, followed by forward and backward reference searching. We will include randomised and quasi-randomised trials in qualitative analysis thus comparing mechanical to manual CPR. Studies reporting survival outcomes will be included in quantitative analysis. Two reviewers will assess independently publications using a predefined data collection form. Standardised tools will be used for data extraction, risks of bias and quality of evidence. If enough studies are identified for meta-analysis, the measures of association will be calculated by dint of bivariate random-effects models. Statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated by I2-statistics and explored through sensitivity analysis. By comprehensive subgroup analysis we intend to identify subpopulations who may benefit from mechanical or manual CPR techniques. The reporting follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval will be needed because data from previous studies will be retrieved and analysed. Most resuscitation studies are conducted under an emergency exception for informed consent. This publication contains data deriving from a dissertation project. We will disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and at scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42017051633.

Project description:BackgroundThe need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is often unexpected, and the infrequent use of CPR in the delivery room (DR) limits the opportunity to perform rigorous clinical studies to determine the best method for delivering chest compression (CC) to newborn infants. The current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend using a coordinated 3:1 compression-to-ventilation (C:V) ratio (CC at a rate of 90/min and ventilations at a rate of 30/min). In comparison, providing CC during a sustained inflation (SI) (CC + SI) significantly improved hemodynamics, minute ventilation, and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to 3:1 C:V ratio in asphyxiated piglets. Similarly, a small pilot trial in newborn infants showed similar results. Until now no study has examined different CC techniques during neonatal resuscitation in asphyxiated newborn infants in the DR. To date, no trial has been performed to directly compare CC + SI and 3:1 C:V ratio in the DR during CPR of asphyxiated newborn infants.MethodsThis is a large, international, multi-center, prospective, unblinded, cluster randomized controlled trial in asphyxiated newborn infants at birth. All term and preterm infants > 28+ 0 by best obstetrical estimate who require CPR at birth due to bradycardia (< 60/min) or asystole are eligible. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the time to ROSC in infants born > 28+ 0 weeks' gestational age with bradycardia (< 60/min) or asystole immediately after birth who receive either CC + SI or 3:1 C:V ratio as the CPR strategy.DiscussionMorbidity and mortality rates are extremely high for newborns requiring CC. We believe the combination of simultaneous CC and SI during CPR has the potential to significantly improve ROSC and survival. In addition, we believe that CC + SI might improve respiratory and hemodynamic parameters and potentially minimize morbidity and mortality in newborn infants. In addition, this will be the first randomized controlled trial to examine CC in the newborn period.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858583 . Registered on 8 August 2016.

Dataset Information

Classification of cardiopulmonary resuscitation chest compression patterns: manual versus automated approaches.

Publications

Classification of cardiopulmonary resuscitation chest compression patterns: manual versus automated approaches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets