BACKGROUND: The impedance threshold device (ITD) is designed to enhance venous return and cardiac output during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by increasing the degree of negative intrathoracic pressure. Previous studies have suggested that the use of an ITD during CPR may improve survival rates after cardiac arrest. METHODS: We compared the use of an active ITD with that of a sham ITD in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent standard CPR at 10 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients, investigators, study coordinators, and all care providers were unaware of the treatment assignments. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with satisfactory function (i.e., a score of ≤3 on the modified Rankin scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS: Of 8718 patients included in the analysis, 4345 were randomly assigned to treatment with a sham ITD and 4373 to treatment with an active device. A total of 260 patients (6.0%) in the sham-ITD group and 254 patients (5.8%) in the active-ITD group met the primary outcome (risk difference adjusted for sequential monitoring, -0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.1 to 0.8; P=0.71). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes, including rates of return of spontaneous circulation on arrival at the emergency department, survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ITD did not significantly improve survival with satisfactory function among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving standard CPR. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC PRIMED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394706.).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The impedance threshold device (ITD) is designed to enhance venous return and cardiac output during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by increasing the degree of negative intrathoracic pressure. Previous studies have suggested that the use of an ITD during CPR may improve survival rates after cardiac arrest. METHODS: We compared the use of an active ITD with that of a sham ITD in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent standard CPR at 10 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients, investigators, study coordinators, and all care providers were unaware of the treatment assignments. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with satisfactory function (i.e., a score of ≤3 on the modified Rankin scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). RESULTS: Of 8718 patients included in the analysis, 4345 were randomly assigned to treatment with a sham ITD and 4373 to treatment with an active device. A total of 260 patients (6.0%) in the sham-ITD group and 254 patients (5.8%) in the active-ITD group met the primary outcome (risk difference adjusted for sequential monitoring, -0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.1 to 0.8; P=0.71). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes, including rates of return of spontaneous circulation on arrival at the emergency department, survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ITD did not significantly improve survival with satisfactory function among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving standard CPR. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC PRIMED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394706.).
Authors: Tom P Aufderheide; Ralph J Frascone; Marvin A Wayne; Brian D Mahoney; Robert A Swor; Robert M Domeier; Michael L Olinger; Richard G Holcomb; David E Tupper; Demetris Yannopoulos; Keith G Lurie Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-01-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Graham Nichol; Brian G Leroux; Thomas D Rea; Joseph P Ornato; Judy Powell; James Christenson; Clifton W Callaway; Peter J Kudenchuk; Tom P Aufderheide; Ahamed H Idris; Mohamud R Daya; Henry E Wang; Laurie J Morrison; Daniel Davis; Douglas Andrusiek; Shannon Stephens; Sheldon Cheskes; Robert H Schmicker; Ray Fowler; Christian Vaillancourt; David Hostler; Dana Zive; Ronald G Pirrallo; Gary M Vilke; George Sopko; Myron Weisfeldt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Demetris Yannopoulos; Gardar Sigurdsson; Scott McKnite; David Benditt; Keith G Lurie Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Tom P Aufderheide; Gardar Sigurdsson; Ronald G Pirrallo; Demetris Yannopoulos; Scott McKnite; Chris von Briesen; Christopher W Sparks; Craig J Conrad; Terry A Provo; Keith G Lurie Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-04-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Henry E Wang; Daniel Szydlo; John A Stouffer; Steve Lin; Jestin N Carlson; Christian Vaillancourt; Gena Sears; Richard P Verbeek; Raymond Fowler; Ahamed H Idris; Karl Koenig; James Christenson; Anushirvan Minokadeh; Joseph Brandt; Thomas Rea Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Siobhan P Brown; Henry Wang; Tom P Aufderheide; Christian Vaillancourt; Robert H Schmicker; Sheldon Cheskes; Ron Straight; Peter Kudenchuk; Laurie Morrison; M Riccardo Colella; Joseph Condle; George Gamez; David Hostler; Tami Kayea; Sally Ragsdale; Shannon Stephens; Graham Nichol Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-11-20 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jestin N Carlson; Dana Zive; Denise Griffiths; Karen N Brown; Robert H Schmicker; Heather Herren; George Sopko; Sara DiFiore; Dixie Climer; Caroline Herdeman; Ahamed Idris; Graham Nichol; Henry E Wang Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Georgios Sideris; Nikolaos Magkoutis; Alok Sharma; Jennifer Rees; Scott McKnite; Emily Caldwell; Mohammad Sarraf; Patrick Henry; Keith Lurie; Santiago Garcia; Demetris Yannopoulos Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 5.262