Phased chest and abdominal compression-decompression versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND

Several methods have been developed to improve the efficacy of mechanical resuscitation, because organ perfusion achieved with conventional manual resuscitation is often insufficient. In animal studies, phased chest and abdominal compression-decompression resuscitation by use of the Lifestick device has resulted in a better outcome compared with that of conventional resuscitation. In end-of-life patients, an increased coronary perfusion pressure was achieved. The aim of the present study was to determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the Lifestick compared with conventional resuscitation in patients with sudden nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS AND

RESULTS

The crews of 4 mobile intensive care units, staffed by an emergency physician and a paramedic, were trained to use the device. Fifty patients were randomized by sealed envelopes to either Lifestick (n=24) or conventional (n=26) resuscitation. No differences were found regarding demographic and logistical conditions between the groups. Nineteen of the patients (73%) with conventional resuscitation had ventricular fibrillation, 13 of whom survived to hospital admission (no survivals with other arrhythmias) and 7 were discharged. In contrast, in the Lifestick-CPR group, only 9 patients had ventricular fibrillation (38%; P=<0.02; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 0.6 to 10.6). Four of these 9 patients and 5 of 15 patients with other arrhythmias survived to hospital admission, but none survived to hospital discharge. Autopsy in a subgroup of patients who died at the scene revealed less injuries with Lifestick than with conventional resuscitation.

CONCLUSION

Lifestick resuscitation is feasible and safe and may be advantageous in patients with asystole or pulseless electric activity.