AIMS: Investigating the effects of any intervention during cardiac arrest remains difficult. The ROSC after cardiac arrest score was introduced to facilitate comparison of rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) between different ambulance services. To study the influence of chest compression quality management (including training, real-time feedback devices, and debriefing) in comparison with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a matched-pair analysis was conducted using data from the German Resuscitation Registry, with the calculated ROSC after cardiac arrest score as the baseline. METHODS AND RESULTS: Matching for independent ROSC after cardiac arrest score variables yielded 319 matched cases from the study period (January 2007-March 2011). The score predicted a 45% ROSC rate for the matched pairs. The observed ROSC increased significantly with chest compression quality management, to 52% (P=0.013; 95% CI, 46-57%). No significant differences were seen in the conventional CPR group (47%; 95% CI, 42-53%). The difference between the observed ROSC rates was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Chest compression quality management leads to significantly higher ROSC rates than those predicted by the prognostic score (ROSC after cardiac arrest score). Matched-pair analysis shows that with conventional CPR, the observed ROSC rate was not significantly different from the predicted rate. Analysis shows a trend toward a higher ROSC rate for chest compression quality management in comparison with conventional CPR. It is unclear whether a single aspect of chest compression quality management or the combination of training, real-time feedback, and debriefing contributed to this result.
AIMS: Investigating the effects of any intervention during cardiac arrest remains difficult. The ROSC after cardiac arrest score was introduced to facilitate comparison of rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) between different ambulance services. To study the influence of chest compression quality management (including training, real-time feedback devices, and debriefing) in comparison with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a matched-pair analysis was conducted using data from the German Resuscitation Registry, with the calculated ROSC after cardiac arrest score as the baseline. METHODS AND RESULTS: Matching for independent ROSC after cardiac arrest score variables yielded 319 matched cases from the study period (January 2007-March 2011). The score predicted a 45% ROSC rate for the matched pairs. The observed ROSC increased significantly with chest compression quality management, to 52% (P=0.013; 95% CI, 46-57%). No significant differences were seen in the conventional CPR group (47%; 95% CI, 42-53%). The difference between the observed ROSC rates was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Chest compression quality management leads to significantly higher ROSC rates than those predicted by the prognostic score (ROSC after cardiac arrest score). Matched-pair analysis shows that with conventional CPR, the observed ROSC rate was not significantly different from the predicted rate. Analysis shows a trend toward a higher ROSC rate for chest compression quality management in comparison with conventional CPR. It is unclear whether a single aspect of chest compression quality management or the combination of training, real-time feedback, and debriefing contributed to this result.
Authors: S Seewald; S Dopfer; J Wnent; B Jakisch; M Heller; R Lefering; J T Gräsner Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Keith Couper; Peter K Kimani; Benjamin S Abella; Mehboob Chilwan; Matthew W Cooke; Robin P Davies; Richard A Field; Fang Gao; Sarah Quinton; Nigel Stallard; Sarah Woolley; Gavin D Perkins Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Manuel Obermaier; Johannes B Zimmermann; Erik Popp; Markus A Weigand; Sebastian Weiterer; Alexander Dinse-Lambracht; Claus-Martin Muth; Benedikt L Nußbaum; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Stephan Seewald; Katrin Jensen; Svenja E Seide Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Theresa M Olasveengen; Mary E Mancini; Gavin D Perkins; Suzanne Avis; Steven Brooks; Maaret Castrén; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Keith Couper; Raffo Escalante; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Kevin K C Hung; Peter Kudenchuk; Swee Han Lim; Chika Nishiyama; Giuseppe Ristagno; Federico Semeraro; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Christian Vaillancourt; Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Marko Sainio; Antti Kämäräinen; Heini Huhtala; Petri Aaltonen; Jyrki Tenhunen; Klaus T Olkkola; Sanna Hoppu Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Thomas Wurmb; Tina Vollmer; Peter Sefrin; Martin Kraus; Oliver Happel; Christian Wunder; Andreas Steinisch; Norbert Roewer; Sebastian Maier Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2015-10-31 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Stephan Seewald; Manuel Obermaier; Rolf Lefering; Andreas Bohn; Michael Georgieff; Claus-Martin Muth; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Siobhán Masterson; Jens Scholz; Jan Wnent Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 3.240