Robert H Schmicker1, Graham Nichol2, Peter Kudenchuk3, Jim Christenson4, Christian Vaillancourt5, Henry E Wang6, Tom P Aufderheide7, Ahamed H Idris8, Mohamud R Daya9. 1. Center for Biomedical Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA United States. Electronic address: rschmick@uw.edu. 2. University of Washington-Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, Seattle, WA United States. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; King County Emergency Medical Services, Public Health, Seattle & King County, WA, United States. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada; Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, Providence Health Care Research Institute, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States. 8. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX United States. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A large, randomized trial showed no significant difference in survival to discharge between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategies of 30 compressions with pause for 2 ventilations per cycle (30:2) and continuous chest compression with asynchronous ventilations (CCC). Data from the same trial suggested that adherence to the intended CPR strategy was associated with significantly greater survival. We sought to determine the adherence rate with intended strategy and then explore the association of adherence with survival to discharge in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from the ROC included three interventional trials and a prospective registry. We modified an automated software algorithm that classified care as 30:2 or CCC before intubation based on compression segment length (defined as the elapsed time from start of compressions to subsequent pause of ≥2 s), number of pauses per minute ≥2 s in length and chest compression fraction. Intended CPR strategy for individual agencies was based on study randomization (during trial phase) or local standard of care (during registry phase). We defined CPR delivered as adherent when its classification matched the intended strategy. We characterized adherence with intended strategy across trial and registry periods. We examined its association with survival to hospital discharge using multivariate logistic regression after adjustment for Utstein and other potential confounders. Effect modification with intended strategy was assessed through a multiplicative interaction term. RESULTS: Included were 26,810 adults with out of hospital cardiac arrest, of which 10,942 had an intended strategy of 30:2 and 15,868 an intended strategy of CCC. The automated algorithm classified 12,276 cases as CCC, 7037 as 30:2 and left 7497 as unclassified. Adherence to intended strategy was 54.4%; this differed by intended strategy (58.6% for CCC vs 48.3% for 30:2). Overall adherence was less during the registry phase as compared to during the trial phase(s). The association between adherence and survival was modified by treatment arm (CCC OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64-0.81 vs 30:2 OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90-1.22; interaction p-value<0.01) after adjustment for known confounders. CONCLUSION: For intended strategy CCC, survival was significantly lower, OR (95%CI) = 0.72 (0.64, 0.81), when adhered to while for intended strategy 30:2, survival was higher, OR (95%CI) = 1.05 (0.90, 1.22), when adhered to. Intended strategy of 30:2 had lower adherence rates than CCC possibly a result of being a more difficult strategy to administer.
BACKGROUND: A large, randomized trial showed no significant difference in survival to discharge between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategies of 30 compressions with pause for 2 ventilations per cycle (30:2) and continuous chest compression with asynchronous ventilations (CCC). Data from the same trial suggested that adherence to the intended CPR strategy was associated with significantly greater survival. We sought to determine the adherence rate with intended strategy and then explore the association of adherence with survival to discharge in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from the ROC included three interventional trials and a prospective registry. We modified an automated software algorithm that classified care as 30:2 or CCC before intubation based on compression segment length (defined as the elapsed time from start of compressions to subsequent pause of ≥2 s), number of pauses per minute ≥2 s in length and chest compression fraction. Intended CPR strategy for individual agencies was based on study randomization (during trial phase) or local standard of care (during registry phase). We defined CPR delivered as adherent when its classification matched the intended strategy. We characterized adherence with intended strategy across trial and registry periods. We examined its association with survival to hospital discharge using multivariate logistic regression after adjustment for Utstein and other potential confounders. Effect modification with intended strategy was assessed through a multiplicative interaction term. RESULTS: Included were 26,810 adults with out of hospital cardiac arrest, of which 10,942 had an intended strategy of 30:2 and 15,868 an intended strategy of CCC. The automated algorithm classified 12,276 cases as CCC, 7037 as 30:2 and left 7497 as unclassified. Adherence to intended strategy was 54.4%; this differed by intended strategy (58.6% for CCC vs 48.3% for 30:2). Overall adherence was less during the registry phase as compared to during the trial phase(s). The association between adherence and survival was modified by treatment arm (CCC OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64-0.81 vs 30:2 OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90-1.22; interaction p-value<0.01) after adjustment for known confounders. CONCLUSION: For intended strategy CCC, survival was significantly lower, OR (95%CI) = 0.72 (0.64, 0.81), when adhered to while for intended strategy 30:2, survival was higher, OR (95%CI) = 1.05 (0.90, 1.22), when adhered to. Intended strategy of 30:2 had lower adherence rates than CCC possibly a result of being a more difficult strategy to administer.
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: Graham Nichol; Brian Leroux; Henry Wang; Clifton W Callaway; George Sopko; Myron Weisfeldt; Ian Stiell; Laurie J Morrison; Tom P Aufderheide; Sheldon Cheskes; Jim Christenson; Peter Kudenchuk; Christian Vaillancourt; Thomas D Rea; Ahamed H Idris; Riccardo Colella; Marshal Isaacs; Ron Straight; Shannon Stephens; Joe Richardson; Joe Condle; Robert H Schmicker; Debra Egan; Susanne May; Joseph P Ornato Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter J Kudenchuk; Siobhan P Brown; Mohamud Daya; Laurie J Morrison; Brian E Grunau; Tom Rea; Tom Aufderheide; Judy Powell; Brian Leroux; Christian Vaillancourt; Jonathan Larsen; Lynn Wittwer; M Riccardo Colella; Shannon W Stephens; Mark Gamber; Debra Egan; Paul Dorian Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Robert H Schmicker; Graham Nichol; Clifton W Callaway; Sheldon Cheskes; George Sopko; Henry E Wang Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-23 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Sheldon Cheskes; Robert H Schmicker; Tom Rea; Laurie J Morrison; Brian Grunau; Ian R Drennan; Brian Leroux; Christian Vaillancourt; Terri A Schmidt; Allison C Koller; Peter Kudenchuk; Tom P Aufderheide; Heather Herren; Katharyn H Flickinger; Mark Charleston; Ron Straight; Jim Christenson Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Al Hallstrom; Thomas D Rea; Michael R Sayre; James Christenson; Andy R Anton; Vince N Mosesso; Lois Van Ottingham; Michele Olsufka; Sarah Pennington; Lynn J White; Stephen Yahn; James Husar; Mary F Morris; Leonard A Cobb Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-06-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Henry E Wang; David K Prince; Shannon W Stephens; Heather Herren; Mohamud Daya; Neal Richmond; Jestin Carlson; Craig Warden; M Riccardo Colella; Ashley Brienza; Tom P Aufderheide; Ahamed H Idris; Robert Schmicker; Susanne May; Graham Nichol Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Peter J Kudenchuk; Siobhan P Brown; Mohamud Daya; Thomas Rea; Graham Nichol; Laurie J Morrison; Brian Leroux; Christian Vaillancourt; Lynn Wittwer; Clifton W Callaway; James Christenson; Debra Egan; Joseph P Ornato; Myron L Weisfeldt; Ian G Stiell; Ahamed H Idris; Tom P Aufderheide; James V Dunford; M Riccardo Colella; Gary M Vilke; Ashley M Brienza; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Pamela C Gray; Randal Gray; Norman Seals; Ron Straight; Paul Dorian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert M Sutton; Ron W Reeder; William Landis; Kathleen L Meert; Andrew R Yates; John T Berger; Christopher J Newth; Joseph A Carcillo; Patrick S McQuillen; Rick E Harrison; Frank W Moler; Murray M Pollack; Todd C Carpenter; Daniel A Notterman; Richard Holubkov; J Michael Dean; Vinay M Nadkarni; Robert A Berg Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Robert H Schmicker; Audrey Blewer; Joshua R Lupton; Tom P Aufderheide; Henry E Wang; Ahamed H Idris; Elisabete Aramendi; Mohamed B Hagahmed; Owen T Traynor; M Riccardo Colella; Mohamud R Daya Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 5.262