Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not improve survival in patients with prehospital cardiac arrest in a physician-manned emergency medical system. The United Kingdom pre-hospital study of active compression-decompression resuscitation. Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a population-based, prospective randomised clinical trial in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
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. 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. 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.
The efficacy of emergency intubation as currently practised has not been rigorously studied. The skill level of the operator may be key in determining efficacy. In non-traumatic cardiac arrest, it is unlikely that intubation carries the same life saving benefit as early defibrillation and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In trauma and paediatric patients, the current evidence base provides no imperative to extend the practice of prehospital intubation in urban systems. It would be ethical and pertinent to initiate a large, high quality randomised trial comparing the efficacy of competently practised emergency intubation with basic bag-valve-mask manoeuvres (BVM) in urban adult out-of-hospital non-traumatic cardiac arrest.