Mechanical active compression-decompression versus standard mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomised haemodynamic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest study.

BACKGROUND: Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) utilises a suction cup to lift the chest-wall actively during the decompression phase (AD). We hypothesised that mechanical ACD-CPR (Intervention), with AD up to 30 mm above the sternal resting position, would generate better haemodynamic results than standard mechanical CPR (Control). METHODS: This out-of-hospital adult non-traumatic cardiac arrest trial was prospective, block-randomised and non-blinded. We included intubated patients with capnography recorded during mechanical CPR. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, prisoners, and prior chest surgery. The primary endpoint was maximum tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure (pMTCO2) and secondary endpoints were oxygen saturation of cerebral tissue (SctO2), invasive arterial blood pressures and CPR-related injuries. Intervention device lifting force performance was categorised as Complete AD (≥30 Newtons) or Incomplete AD (≤10 Newtons). Haemodynamic data, analysed as one measurement for each parameter per ventilation (Observation Unit, OU) with non-linear regression statistics are reported as mean (standard deviation). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 221 enrolled patients, 210 were deemed eligible (Control 109, Intervention 101). The Control vs. Intervention results showed no significant differences for pMTCO2: 29(17) vs 29(18) mmHg (p = 0.86), blood pressures during compressions: 111(45) vs. 101(68) mmHg (p = 0.93) and decompressions: 21(20) vs. 18(18) mmHg (p = 0.93) or for SctO2%: 55(36) vs. 57(9) (p = 0.42). The 48 patients who received Complete AD in > 50% of their OUs had higher SctO2 than Control patients: 58(11) vs. 55(36)% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical ACD-CPR provided similar haemodynamic results to standard mechanical CPR. The Intervention device did not consistently provide Complete AD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02479152. The Haemodynamic Effects of Mechanical Standard and Active Chest Compression-decompression During Out-of-hospital CPR.

Comparison of intranasal and intramuscular naloxone in opioid overdoses managed by ambulance staff: a double-dummy, randomised, controlled trial.

AIMS: To measure and evaluate clinical response to nasal naloxone in opioid overdoses in the pre-hospital environment. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled, double-dummy, blinded, non-inferiority trial, and conducted at two centres. SETTING: Participants were included by ambulance staff in Oslo and Trondheim, Norway, and treated at the place where the overdose occurred. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women age above 18 years with miosis, rate of respiration ≤8/min, and Glasgow Coma Score <12/15 were included. Informed consent was obtained through a deferred-consent procedure. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: A commercially available 1.4 mg/0.1 mL intranasal naloxone was compared with 0.8 mg/2 mL naloxone administered intramuscularly. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end-point was restoration of spontaneous respiration of ≥10 breaths/min within 10 minutes. Secondary outcomes included time to restoration of spontaneous respiration, recurrence of overdose within 12 hours and adverse events. FINDINGS: In total, 201 participants were analysed in the per-protocol population. Heroin was suspected in 196 cases. With 82% of the participants being men, 105 (97.2%) in the intramuscular group and 74 (79.6%) in the intranasal group returned to adequate spontaneous respiration within 10 minutes after one dose. The estimated risk difference was 17.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-26.1%) in favour of the intramuscular group. The risk of receiving additional naloxone was 19.4% (95% CI, 9.0%-29.7%) higher in the intranasal group. Adverse reactions were evenly distributed, except for drug withdrawal reactions, where the estimated risk difference was 6.8% (95% CI, 0.2%-13%) in favour of the intranasal group in a post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: Intranasal naloxone (1.4 mg/0.1 mL) was less efficient than 0.8 mg intramuscular naloxone for return to spontaneous breathing within 10 minutes in overdose patients in the pre-hospital environment when compared head-to-head. Intranasal naloxone at 1.4 mg/0.1 mL restored breathing in 80% of participants after one dose and had few mild adverse reactions.

Transthoracic Impedance Measured with Defibrillator Pads-New Interpretations of Signal Change Induced by Ventilations.

Compressions during the insufflation phase of ventilations may cause severe pulmonary injury during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Transthoracic impedance (TTI) could be used to evaluate how chest compressions are aligned with ventilations if the insufflation phase could be identified in the TTI waveform without chest compression artifacts. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether and how the insufflation phase could be precisely identified during TTI. We synchronously measured TTI and airway pressure (Paw) in 21 consenting anaesthetised patients, TTI through the defibrillator pads and Paw by connecting the monitor-defibrillator's pressure-line to the endotracheal tube filter. Volume control mode with seventeen different settings were used (5-10 ventilations/setting): Six volumes (150-800 mL) with 12 min-1 frequency, four frequencies (10, 12, 22 and 30 min-1) with 400 mL volume, and seven inspiratory times (0.5-3.5 s ) with 400 mL/10 min-1 volume/frequency. Median time differences (quartile range) between timing of expiration onset in the Paw-line (PawEO) and the TTI peak and TTI maximum downslope were measured. TTI peak and PawEO time difference was 579 (432-723) m s for 12 min-1, independent of volume, with a negative relation to frequency, and it increased linearly with inspiratory time (slope 0.47, R 2 = 0.72). PawEO and TTI maximum downslope time difference was between -69 and 84 m s for any ventilation setting (time aligned). It was independent ( R 2 < 0.01) of volume, frequency and inspiratory time, with global median values of -47 (-153-65) m s , -40 (-168-68) m s and 20 (-93-128) m s , for varying volume, frequency and inspiratory time, respectively. The TTI peak is not aligned with the start of exhalation, but the TTI maximum downslope is. This knowledge could help with identifying the ideal ventilation pattern during CPR.

Clinical pilot study of different hand positions during manual chest compressions monitored with capnography.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Optimal hand position for chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is unknown. Recent imaging studies indicate significant inter-individual anatomical variations, which might cause varying haemodynamic responses with standard chest compressions. This prospective clinical pilot study intended to assess the feasibility of utilizing capnography to optimize chest compressions and identify the optimal hand position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intubated cardiac arrest patients treated by the physician manned ambulance between February and December 2011 monitored with continuous end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) measurements were included. One minute of chest compressions at the inter-nipple line (INL) optimized using EtCO2 feedback, was followed by four 30-s intervals with compressions at four different sites; INL, 2 cm below the INL, 2 cm below and to the left of INL and 2 cm below and to the right of INL. RESULTS: Thirty patients were included. At the end of each 30-s interval median (range) EtCO2 was 3.1 kPa (0.7-8.7 kPa) at INL, 3.5 kPa (0.5-10.7) 2 cm below INL, 3.5 kPa (0.5-10.3 kPa) 2 cm below and to the left of INL, and 3.8 kPa (0.4-8.8 kPa) 2 cm below and to the right of INL (p=0.4). The EtCO2 difference within each subject between hand positions with maximum and minimum values varied between individuals from 0.2 to 3.4 kPa (median 0.9 kPa). CONCLUSION: Monitoring and optimizing chest compressions using capnography was feasible. We could not demonstrate one superior hand position, but inter-individual differences suggest optimal hand position might vary significantly among patients.