The Impact of a New CPR Assist Device on Rate of Return of Spontaneous Circulation in Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: The San Francisco Fire Department deployed an automated, load-distributing-band chest compression device (AutoPulse, Revivant Corporation) to evaluate its function in a large urban emergency medical services (EMS) service. A retrospective chart review was undertaken to determine whether the AutoPulse had altered short-term patient outcome, specifically, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).
Methods: AutoPulse cardiopulmonary resuscitation (A-CPR) was used by paramedic captains responding to adult cardiac arrests with an average +/-SD response time of 15 +/- 5 minutes. The primary endpoint was patient arrival to an emergency department with measurable spontaneous pulses. The manual CPR comparison group was case-matched for age, gender, initial presenting electrocardiogram rhythm, and the number of doses of Advanced Cardiac Life Support medications as a proxy for treatment time. Matching was performed by an investigator blinded to outcome and treatment group.
Results: Sixty-nine AutoPulse uses were matched to 93 manual-CPR-only cases. A-CPR showed improvement in the primary outcome when compared with manual CPR with any presenting rhythm (A-CPR 39%, manual 29%, p = 0.003). When patients were classified by first presenting rhythm, shockable rhythms showed no difference in outcome (A-CPR 44%, manual 50%, p = 0.340). Outcome was improved with A-CPR in initial presenting asystole and approached significance with pulseless electrical activity (PEA)(asystole: A-CPR 37%, manual 22%, p = 0.008; PEA: A-CPR 38%, manual 23%, p = 0.079).
Conclusion: The AutoPulse may improve the overall likelihood of sustained ROSC and may particularly benefit patients with nonshockable rhythms. A prospective randomized trial comparing the AutoPulse with manual CPR in the setting of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is under way.
Zhu X, Fu J Exp Ther Med. 2024; 28(6):458.
PMID: 39478734 PMC: 11523225. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2024.12748.
Comparison of mechanical versus manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cardiac arrest.
Zhao Y, Chen D, Wang Q Crit Care. 2024; 28(1):319.
PMID: 39334247 PMC: 11428442. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-05088-7.
Luo D, Weng Y, Zhang N, Xu B, Zhang H, Wang J Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 24(7):191.
PMID: 39077014 PMC: 11266452. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2407191.
Larik M, Ahmed A, Shiraz M, Shiraz S, Anjum M, Bhattarai P Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(8):e37294.
PMID: 38394534 PMC: 10883626. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037294.
Primi R, Bendotti S, Currao A, Sechi G, Marconi G, Pamploni G J Clin Med. 2023; 12(13).
PMID: 37445464 PMC: 10342898. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134429.