STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the maximal end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (ETCO2 peak) values obtained during standard (S-CPR) and active compression-decompression CPR (ACD-CPR) during prolonged resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized crossover study. SETTING:City with a population of 3.5 million, served by an emergency medical service system providing advanced cardiac life support. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive first, for a period of 3 minutes, either ACD-CPR or S-CPR; then the two methods were alternated. ETCO2 was continuously monitored and computed. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS:Sixteen patients (48 +/- 20 years old) were included; in 12, return of spontaneous circulation was achieved, and 5 were admitted alive to the hospital. A statistically significant increase in ETCO2 peak was obtained with ACD-CPR (27.6 +/- 3 mm Hg) compared with S-CPR (15.6 +/- 2.2 mm Hg). No major adverse effect possibly related to ACD-CPR was observed. CONCLUSION: This prospective study suggests that ACD-CPR may improve cardiac output compared with S-CPR.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the maximal end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (ETCO2 peak) values obtained during standard (S-CPR) and active compression-decompression CPR (ACD-CPR) during prolonged resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized crossover study. SETTING: City with a population of 3.5 million, served by an emergency medical service system providing advanced cardiac life support. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomly assigned to receive first, for a period of 3 minutes, either ACD-CPR or S-CPR; then the two methods were alternated. ETCO2 was continuously monitored and computed. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Sixteen patients (48 +/- 20 years old) were included; in 12, return of spontaneous circulation was achieved, and 5 were admitted alive to the hospital. A statistically significant increase in ETCO2 peak was obtained with ACD-CPR (27.6 +/- 3 mm Hg) compared with S-CPR (15.6 +/- 2.2 mm Hg). No major adverse effect possibly related to ACD-CPR was observed. CONCLUSION: This prospective study suggests that ACD-CPR may improve cardiac output compared with S-CPR.
Authors: J P Nolan; C D Deakin; J Soar; B W Böttiger; G Smith; M Baubin; B Dirks; V Wenzel Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Mikkel T Steinberg; Jan-Aage Olsen; Morten Eriksen; Andres Neset; Per Andreas Norseng; Jo Kramer-Johansen; Bjarne Madsen Hardig; Lars Wik Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 2.953