Hallstrom A, Rea TD, Sayre MR, Christenson J, Anton AR, Mosesso VN, Van Ottingham L, Olsufka M, Pennington S, White LJ, Yahn S, Husar J, Morris MF, Cobb LA. Manual Chest Compression vs Use of an Automated Chest Compression Device During Resuscitation Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestA Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2006;295(22):2620–2628. doi:10.1001/jama.295.22.2620
Author Affiliations: Departments of Biostatistics (Dr Hallstrom and Mss Van Ottingham and Morris) and Medicine (Drs Rea and Cobb and Ms Olsufka), University of Washington, Seattle; Department of Emergency Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus (Dr Sayre and Ms White); British Columbia Ambulance Service, Vancouver (Dr Christenson); Calgary Emergency Medical Services, Calgary, Alberta (Dr Anton and Mr Yahn); Department of Emergency Medicine (Dr Mosesso and Mr Husar), School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa; and St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia (Ms Pennington).
Context High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may improve both cardiac and brain resuscitation following cardiac arrest. Compared with manual chest compression, an automated load-distributing band (LDB) chest compression device produces greater blood flow to vital organs and may improve resuscitation outcomes.
Objective To compare resuscitation outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when an automated LDB-CPR device was added to standard emergency medical services (EMS) care with manual CPR.
Design, Setting, and Patients Multicenter, randomized trial of patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States and Canada. The a priori primary population was patients with cardiac arrest that was presumed to be of cardiac origin and that had occurred prior to the arrival of EMS personnel. Initial study enrollment varied by site, ranging from late July to mid November 2004; all sites halted study enrollment on March 31, 2005.
Intervention Standard EMS care for cardiac arrest with an LDB-CPR device (n = 554) or manual CPR (n = 517).
Main Outcome Measures The primary end point was survival to 4 hours after the 911 call. Secondary end points were survival to hospital discharge and neurological status among survivors.
Results Following the first planned interim monitoring conducted by an independent data and safety monitoring board, study enrollment was terminated. No difference existed in the primary end point of survival to 4 hours between the manual CPR group and the LDB-CPR group overall (N = 1071; 29.5% vs 28.5%; P = .74) or among the primary study population (n = 767; 24.7% vs 26.4%, respectively; P = .62). However, among the primary population, survival to hospital discharge was 9.9% in the manual CPR group and 5.8% in the LDB-CPR group (P = .06, adjusted for covariates and clustering). A cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge was recorded in 7.5% of patients in the manual CPR group and in 3.1% of the LDB-CPR group (P = .006).
Conclusions Use of an automated LDB-CPR device as implemented in this study was associated with worse neurological outcomes and a trend toward worse survival than manual CPR. Device design or implementation strategies require further evaluation.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00120965
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest claims hundreds of thousands of lives annually in North America. Successful resuscitation depends on a coordinated set of actions including early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). High-quality CPR may be important for both cardiac and brain resuscitation.1- 3 In animal investigations, fewer interruptions of CPR before and after defibrillation have improved cardiac and neurological outcomes.4- 7 The order of resuscitation interventions may also be important, eg, survival may be improved by performing CPR by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel prior to defibrillation.8,9
Observations of rescue personnel indicate that maintaining consistent compressions is a difficult task.10 In the laboratory, trained paramedics provide shallower and slower compressions over time without noticing.11,12 Chest compressions often do not achieve guideline recommendations with regard to depth, rate, and hands-off time.13,14
The desire to provide optimal chest compressions led to the development of automated mechanical chest compression devices. The AutoPulse Resuscitation System (ZOLL Circulation, Sunnyvale, Calif) is a load-distributing band (LDB) circumferential chest compression device with an electrically actuated constricting band on a short backboard and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in attempted resuscitation of cardiac arrest. In pig models and in-hospital cardiac arrest in humans, this LDB-CPR device produces greater blood flow to the heart and brain than manual CPR by trained individuals or the automated mechanical piston CPR device.15,16 Animal investigation has demonstrated a greater likelihood of neurologically intact survival in prolonged ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest with LDB-CPR.17
In this study, the AutoPulse Assisted Prehospital International Resuscitation (ASPIRE) trial, we compared LDB-CPR with manual CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We hypothesized that 4-hour survival would be greater among patients randomized to LDB-CPR compared with those randomized to manual CPR. Secondary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge and neurological function at hospital discharge.
Corresponding Author: Al Hallstrom, PhD, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, 1107 NE 45th St, Suite 505, Seattle, WA 98105 (email@example.com).
Author Contributions: Dr Hallstrom had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Hallstrom, Rea, Sayre, Christenson, Anton, Mosesso, Van Ottingham, Cobb.
Acquisition of data: Rea, Sayre, Christenson, Anton, Mosesso, Olsufka, Pennington, White, Yahn, Husar, Cobb.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Hallstrom, Rea, Sayre, Christenson, Anton, Mosesso, Van Ottingham, Morris, Cobb.
Drafting of the manuscript: Hallstrom, Rea, Sayre.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Hallstrom, Rea, Sayre, Christenson, Anton, Mosesso, Van Ottingham, Olsufka, Pennington, White, Yahn, Husar, Morris, Cobb.
Statistical analysis: Hallstrom, Morris.
Obtained funding: Hallstrom.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Hallstrom, Van Ottingham.
Study supervision: Hallstrom, Rea, Sayre, Christenson, Anton, Mosesso, Van Ottingham, Olsufka, Pennington, White, Yahn, Husar, Cobb.
Financial Disclosures: Dr Mosesso reported receiving equipment and supplies for the AED clinical trial from the ZOLL Corporation.
Funding/Support: This study was sponsored by Revivant Corporation, now part of the ZOLL Corporation.
Role of the Sponsor: The funding organization provided the automated devices, assisted with training, and attended some of the investigator meetings, but had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation or approval of the manuscript. The sponsor was provided a 1-month period to review and comment on the manuscript prior to submission. The investigators were under no obligation to incorporate any such input.
Acknowledgment: The data and safety monitoring board consisted of Lawrence Brown, EMT-P, Department of Emergency Medicine, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY; David Goff, Jr, MD, PhD, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; Joel Singer, PhD, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia; and Terence Valenzuela, MD, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson. Each data and safety monitoring board member received a fixed amount of money ($3000) independent of how many times the board would need to meet. We acknowledge the dedicated efforts of the following emergency medical service agencies and their personnel: British Columbia Ambulance Service, Baldwin EMS, Calgary EMS, Eastern Area Prehospital Services, McKeesport Ambulance Rescue Service, Medical/Rescue Team South Authority, Northwest EMS, Ross-West View EMS Authority, Seattle Fire Department, Tri-Community South EMS, Columbus Division of Fire EMS, Upper Arlington Fire Division, and Worthington Fire and EMS.