• Per Olav Berve, Bjarne Madsen Hardig, Tore Skålhegg, Håvard Kongsgaard, Jo Kramer-Johansen, and Lars Wik.
• Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Prehospital Emergency Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Air Ambulance Department, Division of Prehospital Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Department of Anaesthesiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: peolbe@ous-hf.no.
• Resuscitation. 2022 Jan 1; 170: 1-10.

BackgroundActive compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) utilises a suction cup to lift the chest-wall actively during the decompression phase (AD). We hypothesised that mechanical ACD-CPR (Intervention), with AD up to 30 mm above the sternal resting position, would generate better haemodynamic results than standard mechanical CPR (Control).MethodsThis out-of-hospital adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest trial was prospective, block-randomised and non-blinded. We included intubated patients with capnography recorded during mechanical CPR. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, prisoners, and prior chest surgery. The primary endpoint was maximum tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (pMTCO2) and secondary endpoints were oxygen saturation of cerebral tissue (SctO2), invasive arterial blood pressures and CPR-related injuries. Intervention device lifting force performance was categorised as Complete AD (≥30 Newtons) or Incomplete AD (≤10 Newtons). Haemodynamic data, analysed as one measurement for each parameter per ventilation (Observation Unit, OU) with non-linear regression statistics are reported as mean (standard deviation). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.ResultsOf 221 enrolled patients, 210 were deemed eligible (Control 109, Intervention 101). The Control vs. Intervention results showed no significant differences for pMTCO2: 29(17) vs 29(18) mmHg (p = 0.86), blood pressures during compressions: 111(45) vs. 101(68) mmHg (p = 0.93) and decompressions: 21(20) vs. 18(18) mmHg (p = 0.93) or for SctO2%: 55(36) vs. 57(9) (p = 0.42). The 48 patients who received Complete AD in > 50% of their OUs had higher SctO2 than Control patients: 58(11) vs. 55(36)% (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMechanical ACD-CPR provided similar haemodynamic results to standard mechanical CPR. The Intervention device did not consistently provide Complete AD.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02479152. The Haemodynamic Effects of Mechanical Standard and Active Chest Compression-decompression During Out-of-hospital CPR.Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…