Background— A clinical observational study revealed that rescuers consistently hyperventilated patients during out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The objective of this study was to quantify the degree of excessive ventilation in humans and determine if comparable excessive ventilation rates during CPR in animals significantly decrease coronary perfusion pressure and survival. Methods and Results— In humans, ventilation rate and duration during CPR was electronically recorded by professional rescuers. In 13 consecutive adults (average age, 63±5.8 years) receiving CPR (7 men), average ventilation rate was 30±3.2 per minute (range, 15 to 49). Average duration per breath was 1.0±0.07 per second. No patient survived. Hemodynamics were studied in 9 pigs in cardiac arrest ventilated in random order with 12, 20, or 30 breaths per minute. Survival rates were then studied in 3 groups of 7 pigs in cardiac arrest that were ventilated at 12 breaths per minute (100% O ₂ ), 30 breaths per minute (100% O ₂ ), or 30 breaths per minute (5% CO ₂ /95% O ₂ ). In animals treated with 12, 20, and 30 breaths per minute, the mean intrathoracic pressure (mm Hg/min) and coronary perfusion pressure (mm Hg) were 7.1±0.7, 11.6±0.7, 17.5±1.0 ( P <0.0001), and 23.4±1.0, 19.5±1.8, and 16.9±1.8 ( P =0.03), respectively. Survival rates were 6/7, 1/7, and 1/7 with 12, 30, and 30+ CO ₂ breaths per minute, respectively ( P =0.006). Conclusions— Professional rescuers were observed to excessively ventilate patients during out-of-hospital CPR. Subsequent animal studies demonstrated that similar excessive ventilation rates resulted in significantly increased intrathoracic pressure and markedly decreased coronary perfusion pressures and survival rates.

In a departure from the previous strategy of immediate defibrillation, the 2005 resuscitation guidelines from the American Heart Association–International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation suggested that emergency medical service (EMS) personnel could provide 2 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before the first analysis of cardiac rhythm. We compared the strategy of a brief period of CPR with early analysis of rhythm with the strategy of a longer period of CPR with delayed analysis of rhythm. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial involving adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at 10 Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium sites in the United States and Canada. Patients in the early-analysis group were assigned to receive 30 to 60 seconds of EMS-administered CPR and those in the later-analysis group were assigned to receive 180 seconds of CPR, before the initial electrocardiographic analysis. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with satisfactory functional status (a modified Rankin scale score of ≤3, on a scale of 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). We included 9933 patients, of whom 5290 were assigned to early analysis of cardiac rhythm and 4643 to later analysis. A total of 273 patients (5.9%) in the later-analysis group and 310 patients (5.9%) in the early-analysis group met the criteria for the primary outcome, with a cluster-adjusted difference of −0.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −1.1 to 0.7; P=0.59). Analyses of the data with adjustment for confounding factors, as well as subgroup analyses, also showed no survival benefit for either study group. Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we found no difference in the outcomes with a brief period, as compared with a longer period, of EMS-administered CPR before the first analysis of cardiac rhythm. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC PRIMED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394706.)

The impedance threshold device (ITD) is designed to enhance venous return and cardiac output during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by increasing the degree of negative intrathoracic pressure. Previous studies have suggested that the use of an ITD during CPR may improve survival rates after cardiac arrest. We compared the use of an active ITD with that of a sham ITD in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent standard CPR at 10 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients, investigators, study coordinators, and all care providers were unaware of the treatment assignments. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge with satisfactory function (i.e., a score of ≤3 on the modified Rankin scale, which ranges from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability). Of 8718 patients included in the analysis, 4345 were randomly assigned to treatment with a sham ITD and 4373 to treatment with an active device. A total of 260 patients (6.0%) in the sham-ITD group and 254 patients (5.8%) in the active-ITD group met the primary outcome (risk difference adjusted for sequential monitoring, −0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.1 to 0.8; P=0.71). There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes, including rates of return of spontaneous circulation on arrival at the emergency department, survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge. Use of the ITD did not significantly improve survival with satisfactory function among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving standard CPR. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC PRIMED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00394706.)