Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not improve survival in patients with prehospital cardiac arrest in a physician-manned emergency medical system. Active compression-decompression resuscitation: effect on resuscitation success after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a population-based, prospective randomised clinical trial in out-of-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. The United Kingdom pre-hospital study of active compression-decompression resuscitation. Active compression-decompression resuscitation: a prospective, randomized study in a two-tiered EMS system with physicians in the field. The Ontario trial of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital and prehospital cardiac arrest. Evaluation of active compression-decompression CPR in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Effectiveness of mechanical versus manual chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation: a pilot study.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Improved cardiopulmonary circulation with active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) has been demonstrated in studies using different animal models and a small number of humans in cardiac arrest (CA). However, prehospital studies have shown both positive and no extra benefit of ACD-CPR on return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hospital admission and discharge rates. The aim of our prospective study was to compare standard manual CPR (S-CPR) with ACD-CPR as the initial technique of resuscitating patients with out-of-hospital CA, with respect to survival rates and neurological outcome. Patients with out-of-hospital CA treated by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel were randomly assigned to one of two groups (ACD-CPR versus S-CPR). Time intervals to key measures were documented by means of on-line tape-recording. Neurological outcome was assessed using standard scoring systems (cerebral and overall performance categories (CPC and OPC)). A total of 220 patients (S-CPR, n = 114: ACD-CPR, n = 106) were included in the study in a random order. The treatment groups were similar with respect to age, sex, time interval from collapse to CPR, defibrillation and first adrenaline medication. There was no difference between the ACD group and the standard CPR group in terms of ROSC (50.9% vs. 59.6%), hospital admission (33% vs. 33.3%), hospital discharge (16% vs. 14%), or CPC and OPC (1.82 vs. 2.13 and 2.06 vs. 2.25, respectively). Concerning complications of CPR, there was no difference between the groups. In our two-tiered EMS system with physician-staffed ambulances, ACD-CPR neither improved nor impaired survival rates and neurological prognosis in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The new CPR technique did not increase the complications associated with the resuscitation effort. 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. OBJECTIVE--Active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) appears to improve ventilation and coronary perfusion when compared with standard CPR. The objective was to evaluate potential benefits of this new CPR technique in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in St Paul, Minn. DESIGN--Ten-month, prospective, randomized parallel-group design. SETTING--St Paul, Minn, population 270,000. PATIENTS--All normothermic victims of nontraumatic cardiac arrest older than 8 years who received CPR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Return of spontaneous circulation, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), return of baseline neurological function (alert and oriented to person, place, and time), survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital discharge with return of baseline neurological function, and complications. RESULTS--Seventy-seven patients received standard CPR and 53 patients received ACD CPR. The mean emergency medical services call response interval was less than 3.5 minutes. When all patients were considered, a higher percentage of ACD CPR patients had a return of spontaneous circulation and were admitted to the ICU vs standard CPR (45% vs 31%, and 40% vs 26%, respectively), but these trends were not statistically significant (P < .10 and P < .10). No statistically significant differences were found between hospital discharge rates (12 [23%] of 53 for ACD CPR vs 13 [17%] of 77 for standard CPR), return to baseline neurological function (10 [19%] of 53 for ACD CPR vs 13 [17%] of 77 for standard CPR), or return to baseline neurological function at hospital discharge (nine [17%] of 53 for ACD CPR vs 12 [16%] of 77 for standard CPR). Return of spontaneous circulation, ICU admission, and neurological recovery in both CPR groups were highly correlated with downtime (time from collapse to emergency medical system personnel arrival to the scene in witnessed arrests). With less than 10 minutes' downtime, survival to the ICU was 59% (19/32) with ACD CPR and 33% (16/49) with standard CPR (P < .02), return to baseline neurological function was 31% (10/32) with ACD CPR and 20% (10/49) with standard CPR (P = .27), and hospital discharge rate was 38% (12/32) with ACD CPR and 20% (10/49) with standard CPR (P = .17). Complication rates in patients admitted to the hospital were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS--This study demonstrates that ACD CPR appears to be more effective than standard CPR in a well-defined subset of victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during the critical early phases of resuscitation. Based on this study, a larger study should be performed to evaluate the potential long-term benefits of ACD CPR. A prospective, randomized effectiveness trial was undertaken to compare mechanical versus manual chest compressions as measured by end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) resuscitation from a municipal third-service, emergency medical services (EMS) agency. The EMS agency responds to approximately 6,700 emergencies annually, 79 of which were cardiac arrests in 1994, the study year. Following endotracheal intubation, all cardiac arrest patients were placed on 100% oxygen via the ventilator circuit of the mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) device. Patients were randomized to receive mechanical CPR (TCPR) or human/manual CPR (HCPR) based on an odd/even day basis, with TCPR being performed on odd days. ETCO2 readings were obtained 5 minutes after the initiation of either TCPR or HCPR and again at the initiation of patient transport to the hospital. All patients received standard ACLS pharmacotherapy during the monitoring interval with the exception of sodium bicarbonate. CPR was continued until the patient was delivered to the hospital emergency department. Age, call response interval, initial electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm, scene time, ETCO2 measurements, and arrest outcome were identified for all patients. Twenty patients were entered into the study, with 10 in each treatment group. Three patients in the TCPR group were excluded. Measurements in the HCPR group revealed a decreasing ETCO2 during the resuscitation in 8 of 10 patients (80%) and an increasing ETCO2 in the remaining 2 patients. No decrease in ETCO2 was noted in the TCPR group, with 4 of 7 patients (57%) actually showing an increased reading and 3 of 7 patients (43%) showing a constant ETCO2 reading. The differences in the ETCO2 measurements between TCPR and HCPR groups were statistically significant. Both groups were similar with regards to call response intervals, patient ages, scene times, and initial ECG rhythms. One patient in the TCPR group was admitted to the hospital but later died, leaving no survivors in the study. TCPR appears to be superior to standard HCPR as measured by ETCO2 in maintaining cardiac output during ACLS resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.
Active chest compression-decompression in patients with cardiac arrest is not associated with clear benefit.