Vishal Gupta1, Robert H Schmicker2, Pamela Owens3, Ava E Pierce3, Ahamed H Idris4. 1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-8579, United States. 2. Center for Biomedical Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-8579, United States. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390-8579, United States. Electronic address: ahamed.idris@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-quality chest compressions are associated with improved outcomes after cardiac arrest. Defibrillators record important information about chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and can be used in quality-improvement programs. Defibrillator review software can automatically annotate files and measure chest compression metrics. However, evidence is limited regarding the accuracy of such measurements. OBJECTIVE: To compare chest compression fraction (CCF) and rate measurements made with software annotation vs. manual annotation vs. limited manual annotation of defibrillator files recorded during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) CPR. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study of 100 patients who had CPR for OHCA. We assessed chest compression bioimpedance waveforms from the time of initial CPR until defibrillator removal. A reviewer revised software annotations in two ways: completely manual annotations and limited manual annotations, which marked the beginning and end of CPR and ROSC, but not chest compressions. Measurements were compared for CCF and rate using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. RESULTS: Case mean rate showed no significant difference between the methods (108.1-108.6 compressions per minute) and ICC was excellent (>0.90). The case mean (±SD) CCF for software, manual, and limited manual annotation was 0.64 ± 0.19, 0.86 ± 0.07, and 0.81 ± 0.10, respectively. The ICC for manual vs. limited manual annotation of CCF was 0.69 while for individual minute epochs it was 0.83. CONCLUSION: Software annotation performed very well for chest compression rate. For CCF, the difference between manual and software annotation measurements was clinically important, while manual vs. limited manual annotation were similar with an ICC that was good-to-excellent.
BACKGROUND: High-quality chest compressions are associated with improved outcomes after cardiac arrest. Defibrillators record important information about chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and can be used in quality-improvement programs. Defibrillator review software can automatically annotate files and measure chest compression metrics. However, evidence is limited regarding the accuracy of such measurements. OBJECTIVE: To compare chest compression fraction (CCF) and rate measurements made with software annotation vs. manual annotation vs. limited manual annotation of defibrillator files recorded during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) CPR. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study of 100 patients who had CPR for OHCA. We assessed chest compression bioimpedance waveforms from the time of initial CPR until defibrillator removal. A reviewer revised software annotations in two ways: completely manual annotations and limited manual annotations, which marked the beginning and end of CPR and ROSC, but not chest compressions. Measurements were compared for CCF and rate using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis. RESULTS: Case mean rate showed no significant difference between the methods (108.1-108.6 compressions per minute) and ICC was excellent (>0.90). The case mean (±SD) CCF for software, manual, and limited manual annotation was 0.64 ± 0.19, 0.86 ± 0.07, and 0.81 ± 0.10, respectively. The ICC for manual vs. limited manual annotation of CCF was 0.69 while for individual minute epochs it was 0.83. CONCLUSION: Software annotation performed very well for chest compression rate. For CCF, the difference between manual and software annotation measurements was clinically important, while manual vs. limited manual annotation were similar with an ICC that was good-to-excellent.
Authors: Dana Yost; Reid H Phillips; Louis Gonzales; Charles J Lick; Paul Satterlee; Michael Levy; Joseph Barger; Pamela Dodson; Stephen Poggi; Karen Wojcik; Robert A Niskanen; Fred W Chapman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2012-02-04 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: John M Field; Mary Fran Hazinski; Michael R Sayre; Leon Chameides; Stephen M Schexnayder; Robin Hemphill; Ricardo A Samson; John Kattwinkel; Robert A Berg; Farhan Bhanji; Diana M Cave; Edward C Jauch; Peter J Kudenchuk; Robert W Neumar; Mary Ann Peberdy; Jeffrey M Perlman; Elizabeth Sinz; Andrew H Travers; Marc D Berg; John E Billi; Brian Eigel; Robert W Hickey; Monica E Kleinman; Mark S Link; Laurie J Morrison; Robert E O'Connor; Michael Shuster; Clifton W Callaway; Brett Cucchiara; Jeffrey D Ferguson; Thomas D Rea; Terry L Vanden Hoek Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Monica E Kleinman; Erin E Brennan; Zachary D Goldberger; Robert A Swor; Mark Terry; Bentley J Bobrow; Raúl J Gazmuri; Andrew H Travers; Thomas Rea Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benjamin S Abella; Jason P Alvarado; Helge Myklebust; Dana P Edelson; Anne Barry; Nicholas O'Hearn; Terry L Vanden Hoek; Lance B Becker Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Demetris Yannopoulos; Tom P Aufderheide; Benjamin S Abella; Sue Duval; Ralph J Frascone; Jeffrey M Goodloe; Brian D Mahoney; Vinay M Nadkarni; Henry R Halperin; Robert O'Connor; Ahamed H Idris; Lance B Becker; Paul E Pepe Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jim Christenson; Douglas Andrusiek; Siobhan Everson-Stewart; Peter Kudenchuk; David Hostler; Judy Powell; Clifton W Callaway; Dan Bishop; Christian Vaillancourt; Dan Davis; Tom P Aufderheide; Ahamed Idris; John A Stouffer; Ian Stiell; Robert Berg Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-09-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Wolfgang J Kern; Simon Orlob; Birgitt Alpers; Michael Schörghuber; Andreas Bohn; Martin Holler; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Jan Wnent Journal: Data Brief Date: 2022-02-18