Clinical evaluation of an inspiratory impedance threshold device during standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an impedance threshold device, designed to enhance circulation, would increase acute resuscitation rates for patients in cardiac arrest receiving conventional manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, intention-to-treat.
SETTING: Out-of-hospital trial conducted in the Milwaukee, WI, emergency medical services system. PATIENTS: Adults in cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac etiology.
INTERVENTIONS: On arrival of advanced life support, patients were treated with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation combined with either an active or a sham impedance threshold device.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured safety and efficacy of the impedance threshold device; the primary end point was intensive care unit admission. Statistical analyses performed included the chi-square test and multivariate regression analysis. One hundred sixteen patients were treated with a sham impedance threshold device, and 114 patients were treated with an active impedance threshold device. Overall intensive care unit admission rates were 17% with the sham device vs. 25% in the active impedance threshold device (p = .13; odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.87, 3.10). Patients in the subgroup presenting with pulseless electrical activity had intensive care unit admission and 24-hr survival rates of 20% and 12% in sham (n = 25) vs. 52% and 30% in active impedance threshold device groups (n = 27) (p = .018, odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.28, 14.5, and p = .12, odds ratio, 3.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.74, 13.0, respectively). A post hoc analysis of patients with pulseless electrical activity at any time during the cardiac arrest revealed that intensive care unit and 24-hr survival rates were 20% and 11% in the sham (n = 56) vs. 41% and 27% in the active impedance threshold device groups (n = 49) (p = .018, odds ratio, 2.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.19, 6.67, and p = .037, odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.07, 8.96, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes for patients presenting in ventricular fibrillation and asystole. Adverse event and complication rates were also similar.
CONCLUSIONS: During this first clinical trial of the impedance threshold device during standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of the new device more than doubled short-term survival rates in patients presenting with pulseless electrical activity. A larger clinical trial is underway to determine the potential longer term benefits of the impedance threshold device in cardiac arrest.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes