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.

Objectives: Combined with devices that enhance venous return out of the brain and into the thorax, preclinical outcomes are improved significantly using a synergistic bundled approach involving mild elevation of the head and chest during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The objective here was to confirm clinical safety/feasibility of this bundled approach including use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation provided at a head-up angle. Design: Quarterly tracking of the frequency of successful resuscitation before, during, and after the clinical introduction of a bundled head-up/torso-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation strategy. Setting: 9-1-1 response system for a culturally diverse, geographically expansive, populous jurisdiction. Patients: All 2,322 consecutive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases (all presenting cardiac rhythms) were followed over 3.5 years (January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017). Interventions: In 2014, 9-1-1 crews used LUCAS (Physio-Control Corporation, Redmond, WA) mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation and impedance threshold devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. After April 2015, they also 1) applied oxygen but deferred positive pressure ventilation several minutes, 2) solidified a pit-crew approach for rapid LUCAS placement, and 3) subsequently placed the patient in a reverse Trendelenburg position (~20°). Measurements and Main Results: No problems were observed with head-up/torso-up positioning (n = 1,489), but resuscitation rates rose significantly during the transition period (April to June 2015) with an ensuing sustained doubling of those rates over the next 2 years (mean, 34.22%; range, 29.76–39.42%; n = 1,356 vs 17.87%; range, 14.81–20.13%, for 806 patients treated prior to the transition; p < 0.0001). Outcomes improved across all subgroups. Response intervals, clinical presentations and indications for attempting resuscitation remained unchanged. Resuscitation rates in 2015–2017 remained proportional to neurologically intact survival (~35–40%) wherever tracked. Conclusions: The head-up/torso-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation bundle was feasible and associated with an immediate, steady rise in resuscitation rates during implementation followed by a sustained doubling of the number of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients being resuscitated. These findings make a compelling case that this bundled technique will improve out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes significantly in other clinical evaluations.

Objectives Resuscitation in the Head Up position improves outcomes in animals treated with active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an impedance threshold device (ACD + ITD CPR). We assessed impact of time to deployment of an automated Head Up position (AHUP) based bundle of care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest on return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Methods Observational data were analyzed from a patient registry. Patients received treatment with 1) ACD + and/or automated CPR 2) an ITD and 3) an AHUP device. Probability of ROSC (ROSCprob) from the 9-1-1 call to AHUP device placement was assessed with a restricted cubic spline model and linear regression. Results Of 11 sites, 6 recorded the interval from 9-1-1 to AHUP device (n = 227). ROSCprob for all rhythms was 34%(77/227). Median age (range) was 66 years (19-101) and 68% men. The ROSCprob for shockable rhythms was 47%(18/38). Minutes from 9-1-1 to AHUP device (median, range) varied between sites: 1) 6.4(4,15), 2) 8.0(5,19), 3) 9.9(4, 12), 4) 14.1(6, 36), 5) 15.9(6, 34), 6) 19.0(8, 38),(p = 0.0001). ROSCprob also varied; 1) 55.1%(16/29), 2) 60%(3/5), 3) 50%(3/6), 4) 22.7%(17/75), 5) 26.4%(9/34), and 6) 37.1%(29/78), (p = 0.019). For all rhythms between 4-12 minutes (n = 85), ROSCprob declined 5.6% for every minute elapsed (p = 0.024). For shockable rhythms, between 6-15 minutes (n = 23), ROSCprob declined 9.0% for every minute elapsed (p = 0.006). Conclusions Faster time to deployment of an AHUP based bundle of care is associated with higher incidence of ROSC. This must be considered when evaluating and implementing this bundle.