Dataset Information

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Compression Rates during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

ABSTRACT:

Unlabelled

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with 120 compressions per minute (CPM) to CPR with 100 CPM in patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We randomly assigned patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest into two groups upon arrival to the emergency department (ED). The patients received manual CPR either with 100 CPM (CPR-100 group) or 120 CPM (CPR-120 group). The primary outcome measure was sustained restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The secondary outcome measures were survival discharge from the hospital, one-month survival, and one-month survival with good functional status. Of 470 patients with cardiac arrest, 136 patients in the CPR-100 group and 156 patients in the CPR-120 group were included in the final analysis. A total of 69 patients (50.7%) in the CPR-100 group and 67 patients (42.9%) in the CPR-120 group had ROSC (absolute difference, 7.8% points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.7 to 19.2%; P = 0.183). The rates of survival discharge from the hospital, one-month survival, and one-month survival with good functional status were not different between the two groups (16.9% vs. 12.8%, P = 0.325; 12.5% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.073; 5.9% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.154, respectively). We did not find differences in the resuscitation outcomes between those who received CPR with 100 CPM and those with 120 CPM. However, a large trial is warranted, with adequate power to confirm a statistically non-significant trend toward superiority of CPR with 100 CPM. (

Clinical trial registration information

www.cris.nih.go.kr, cris.nih.go.kr number, KCT0000231).

SUBMITTER: Hwang SO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4974194 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Compression Rates during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Hwang Sung Oh SO Cha Kyoung Chul KC Kim Kyuseok K Jo You Hwan YH Chung Sung Phil SP You Je Sung JS Shin Jonghwan J Lee Hui Jai HJ Park Yoo Seok YS Kim Seunghwan S Choi Sang Cheon SC Park Eun Jung EJ Kim Won Young WY Seo Dong Woo DW Moon Sungwoo S Han Gapsu G Choi Han Sung HS Kang Hyunggoo H Park Seung Min SM Kwon Woon Yong WY Choi Eunhee E

Journal of Korean medical science 20160901 9

<h4>Unlabelled</h4>The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with 120 compressions per minute (CPM) to CPR with 100 CPM in patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We randomly assigned patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest into two groups upon arrival to the emergency department (ED). The patients received manual CPR either with 100 CPM (CPR-100 group) or 120 CPM (CPR-120 group). The primary outcome meas ...[more]

PMID: 27510396

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundActive compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with decreased intrathoracic pressure in the decompression phase can lead to improved haemodynamics compared with standard CPR. We aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of this intervention on survival with favourable neurological function after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.MethodsIn our randomised trial of 46 emergency medical service agencies (serving 2·3 million people) in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the USA, we assessed outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest according to Utstein guidelines. We provisionally enrolled patients to receive standard CPR or active compression-decompression CPR with augmented negative intrathoracic pressure (via an impedance-threshold device) with a computer-generated block randomisation weekly schedule in a one-to-one ratio. Adults (presumed age or age ≥18 years) who had a non-traumatic arrest of presumed cardiac cause and met initial and final selection criteria received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function (modified Rankin scale score of ≤3). All investigators apart from initial rescuers were masked to treatment group assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00189423.Findings2470 provisionally enrolled patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. 813 (68%) of 1201 patients assigned to the standard CPR group (controls) and 840 (66%) of 1269 assigned to intervention CPR received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. 47 (6%) of 813 controls survived to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function compared with 75 (9%) of 840 patients in the intervention group (odds ratio 1·58, 95% CI 1·07-2·36; p=0·019]. 74 (9%) of 840 patients survived to 1 year in the intervention group compared with 48 (6%) of 813 controls (p=0·03), with equivalent cognitive skills, disability ratings, and emotional-psychological statuses in both groups. The overall major adverse event rate did not differ between groups, but more patients had pulmonary oedema in the intervention group (94 [11%] of 840) than did controls (62 [7%] of 813; p=0·015).InterpretationOn the basis of our findings showing increased effectiveness and generalisability of the study intervention, active compression-decompression CPR with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure should be considered as an alternative to standard CPR to increase long-term survival after cardiac arrest.FundingUS National Institutes of Health grant R44-HL065851-03, Advanced Circulatory Systems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-based best practices are the cornerstone to guide optimal cardiopulmonary arrest resuscitation care. Adherence to the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) optimizes the management of critically ill patients and increases their chances of survival after cardiac arrest. Despite advances in resuscitation science and survival improvement over the last decades, only approximately 38% of children survive to hospital discharge after in-hospital cardiac arrest and only 6%-20% after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE:We investigated whether a mobile app developed as a guide to support and drive CPR providers in real time through interactive pediatric advanced life support (PALS) algorithms would increase adherence to AHA guidelines and reduce the time to initiation of critical life-saving maneuvers compared to the use of PALS pocket reference cards. METHODS:This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted during a simulation-based pediatric cardiac arrest scenario caused by pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT). A total of 26 pediatric residents were randomized into two groups. The primary outcome was the elapsed time in seconds in each allocation group from the onset of pVT to the first defibrillation attempt. Secondary outcomes were time elapsed to (1) initiation of chest compression, (2) subsequent defibrillation attempts, and (3) administration of drugs, including the time intervals between defibrillation attempts and drug doses, shock doses, and the number of shocks. All outcomes were assessed for deviation from AHA guidelines. RESULTS:Mean time to the first defibrillation attempt (121.4 sec, 95% CI 105.3-137.5) was significantly reduced among residents using the app compared to those using PALS pocket cards (211.5 sec, 95% CI 162.5-260.6, P<.001). With the app, 11 out of 13 (85%) residents initiated chest compressions within 60 seconds from the onset of pVT and 12 out of 13 (92%) successfully defibrillated within 180 seconds. Time to all other defibrillation attempts was reduced with the app. Adherence to the 2018 AHA pVT algorithm improved by approximately 70% (P=.001) when using the app following all CPR sequences of action in a stepwise fashion until return of spontaneous circulation. The pVT rhythm was recognized correctly in 51 out of 52 (98%) opportunities among residents using the app compared to only 19 out of 52 (37%) among those using PALS cards (P<.001). Time to epinephrine injection was similar. Among a total of 78 opportunities, incorrect shock or drug doses occurred in 14% (11/78) of cases among those using the cards. These errors were reduced to 1% (1/78, P=.005) when using the app. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the mobile app was associated with a shorter time to first and subsequent defibrillation attempts, fewer medication and defibrillation dose errors, and improved adherence to AHA recommendations compared with the use of PALS pocket cards.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Compression Rates during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Unlabelled

Clinical trial registration information

Publications

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Compression Rates during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets