Search

Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains poor. A physiologically distinct cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategy consisting of (1) active compression-decompression CPR and/or automated CPR, (2) an impedance threshold device, and (3) automated controlled elevation of the head and thorax (ACE) has been shown to improve neurological survival significantly versus conventional (C) CPR in animal models. This resuscitation device combination, termed ACE-CPR, is now used clinically.To assess the probability of OHCA survival to hospital discharge after ACE-CPR versus C-CPR.As part of a prospective registry study, 227 ACE-CPR OHCA patients were enrolled 04/2019-07/2020 from 6 pre-hospital systems in the United States. Individual C-CPR patient data (n = 5196) were obtained from three large published OHCA randomized controlled trials from high-performing pre-hospital systems. The primary study outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and favorable neurological survival. Propensity-score matching with a 1:4 ratio was performed to account for imbalances in baseline characteristics.Irrespective of initial rhythm, ACE-CPR (n = 222) was associated with higher adjusted odds ratios (OR) of survival to hospital discharge relative to C-CPR (n = 860), when initiated in11 min (3.28, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.55-6.92) and 18 min (1.88, 95 % CI, 1.03-3.44) after the emergency call, respectively. Rapid use of ACE-CPR was also associated with higher probabilities of ROSC and favorable neurological survival.Compared with C-CPR controls, rapid initiation of ACE-CPR was associated with a higher likelihood of survival to hospital discharge after OHCA.

Introduction: Survival rates after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain poor with widespread use of conventional (C) CPR. Based on pre-clinical studies showing improved cerebral flow and neurologically-intact survival, a FDA approved automated Head Up Positioning (AHUP) device for CPR was developed for use with an impedance threshold device (ITD), and manual and/or automated suction cup-based CPR. A prospective observational IRB approved registry was created to track use and clinical outcomes with this AHUP device based bundle. Hypothesis: Faster time to use of an AHUP CPR bundle improves survival to hospital discharge after OHCA versus historical controls treated with C-CPR. Methods: Registry patients from sites routinely recording time from 911 call to AHUP device placement (T 911 ) were included. C-CPR controls were from 3 prior randomized prospective CPR trials: 1) Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation using an IMpedance valve and Early versus Delayed (ROC PRIMED) Study, 2) Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo Study (ROC-ALPS), 3) The ResQTrial. Propensity score analysis was performed using logistic regression for baseline characteristics including age, sex, witnessed arrest, bystander CPR, shockable rhythm, and time to first responder CPR. Each AHUP patient was matched with up to 4 C-CPR patients. Results: Of 11 U.S. sites reporting AHUP CPR outcomes, 6 had time from 911 call to AHUP device placement recorded (n = 227). The model yielded a c-statistic of 0.76. Stratified by T 911 , the odds of survival with AHUP CPR were significantly higher than with C-CPR between T 911 < 7 minutes (OR 4.57, 95% CI 1.3-16.0) and T 911 < 15 minutes (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.1-3.8). There was a time dependent effect of AHUP device placement on survival (See Figure). Conclusions: More rapid initiation of an AHUP CPR bundle resulted in improved survival to hospital discharge versus historical controls treated with C-CPR in OHCA.

Introduction: Multiple clinical trials have failed to show significant differences in survival between use of endotracheal intubation (ETI) and supraglottic airway devices (SGA) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, treatment in these trials was limited to standard ACLS, which favors short duration of CPR. We sought to compare the physiological effect of ETI versus SGA use in patients treated with prolonged CPR and extracorporeal pulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for refractory ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (VT/VF) by the Minnesota Mobile Resuscitation Consortium (MMRC). Methods: Consecutive refractory VT/VF OHCA patients transported by the MMRC to the University of Minnesota for ECPR between 2015 and 2021 were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were considered ineligible for ECPR if they failed specific arterial blood gas metabolic criteria (lactic acid >18 mmol/L, PaO2 Results: Among 260 patients (58.0±11.8 years), 46.5% received ETI and 53.5% received SGA. During the index hospitalization, 78/260 (30%) achieved neurologically favorable survival. Compared to those receiving ETI, patients receiving SGA had lower PaO2 (116.8±118.7 versus 135.8±128.3 mmHg, p=0.03), higher PaCO2 (69.7±28.9 versus 60.7±25.6 mmHg, p=0.01), and lower pH (7.00±0.19 versus 7.06±0.21, p=0.008). Significantly more patients who received SGA had PaO2 Conclusion: Use of SGA, during prolonged CPR in refractory VT/VF OHCA, was associated with a significant increase in the proportion of patients presenting with significant hypoxemia and asphyxial physiology, thus increasing ineligibility for ECPR.