Paula Lank

A prospective, randomised and blinded comparison of first shock success of monophasic and biphasic waveforms in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND Evidence suggests that biphasic waveforms are more effective than monophasic waveforms for defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet their performance has only been compared in un-blinded studies. METHODS AND RESULTS We compared the success of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks for defibrillation in OHCA in a prospective, randomised, double blind clinical trial. First responders were equipped with MDS and BTE automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in a random fashion. Patients in ventricular fibrillation (VF) received BTE or MDS first shocks of 200 J. The ECG was recorded for subsequent analysis continuously. The success of the first shock as a primary endpoint was removal of VF and required a return of an organized rhythm for at least two QRS complexes, with an interval of <5 s, within 1 min after the first shock. The secondary endpoint was termination of VF at 5 s. VF was the initial recorded rhythm in 120 patients in OHCA, 51 patients received BTE and 69 received MDS shocks. The success rate of 200 J first shocks was significantly higher for BTE than for MDS shocks, 35/51 (69%) and 31/69 (45%), P=0.01. In a logistic regression model the odds ratio of success for a BTE shock was 4.01 (95% CI 1.01-10.0), adjusted for baseline cardiopulmonary resuscitation, VF-amplitude and time between collapse and first shock. No difference was found with respect to the secondary endpoint, termination of VF at 5 s (RR 1.07 95% CI: 0.99-1.11) and with respect to survival to hospital discharge (RR 0.73 95% CI: 0.31-1.70). CONCLUSION BTE-waveform AEDs provide significantly higher rates of successful defibrillation with return of an organized rhythm in OHCA than MDS waveform AEDs.

BIPHASIC Trial A Randomized Comparison of Fixed Lower Versus Escalating Higher Energy Levels for Defibrillation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background— There is little clear evidence as to the optimal energy levels for initial and subsequent shocks in biphasic waveform defibrillation. The present study compared fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimens for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results— The Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Fixed Versus Escalating Energy Regimens for Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation (BIPHASIC Trial) was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 221 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received ≥1 shock given by biphasic automated external defibrillator devices that were randomly programmed to provide, blindly, fixed lower-energy (150-150-150 J) or escalating higher-energy (200-300-360 J) regimens. Patient mean age was 66.0 years; 79.6% were male. The cardiac arrest was witnessed in 63.8%; a bystander performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 23.5%; and initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 92.3%. The fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimen cases were similar for the 106 multishock patients and for all 221 patients. In the primary analysis in multishock patients, conversion rates differed significantly (fixed lower, 24.7%, versus escalating higher, 36.6%; P=0.035; absolute difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 24.4). Ventricular fibrillation termination rates also were significantly different between groups (71.2% versus 82.5%; P=0.027; absolute difference, 11.3%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.9). For the secondary analysis of first shock success, conversion rates were similar between the fixed lower and escalating higher study groups (38.4% versus 36.7%; P=0.92), as were ventricular fibrillation termination rates (86.8% versus 88.8%; P=0.81). There were no distinguishable differences between regimens for survival outcomes or adverse effects. Conclusions— This is the first randomized trial to compare fixed lower and escalating higher biphasic energy regimens in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and it demonstrated higher rates of ventricular fibrillation conversion and termination with an escalating higher-energy regimen for patients requiring multiple shocks. These results suggest that patients in ventricular fibrillation benefit from higher biphasic energy levels if multiple defibrillation shocks are required.

DEFI 2005 A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effect of Automated External Defibrillator Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Protocol on Outcome From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background— Using automated external defibrillators (AEDs) that implement the Guidelines 2000 resuscitation protocol constrains administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to <50% of AED connection time. We tested a different AED protocol aimed at increasing the CPR administered to patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results— In a randomized controlled trial, patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requiring defibrillation were treated with 1 of 2 AED protocols. In the control protocol, based on Guidelines 2000, sequences of up to 3 stacked countershocks were delivered, with rhythm analyses initially and after the first and second shocks. The study protocol featured 1 minute of CPR before the first shock, shorter CPR interruptions before and after each shock, and no stacked shocks. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission. Of 5107 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients connected to an AED, 1238 required defibrillation, and 845 were included in the final analysis. Study patients (n=421) had shorter preshock pauses (9 versus 19 seconds; P<0.001), had shorter postshock pauses (11 versus 33 seconds; P<0.001), and received more CPR (61% versus 48%; P<0.001) and fewer shocks (2.5 versus 2.9; P<0.001) than control patients (n=424). Similar proportions survived to hospital admission (43.2% versus 42.7%; P=0.87), survived to hospital discharge (13.3% versus 10.6%; P=0.19), achieved return of spontaneous circulation before physician arrival (47.0% versus 48.6%; P=0.65), and survived to 1 year (P=0.77). Conclusions— Following prompts from AEDs programmed with a protocol similar to Guidelines 2005, firefighters shortened pauses in CPR and improved overall hands-on time, but survival to hospital admission of patients with ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00139542.

Performance of chest compressions by laypersons during the Public Access Defibrillation Trial

BACKGROUND Increasing evidence indicates that health professionals often may not achieve guideline standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Little is known about layperson CPR performance. METHODS The investigation was a retrospective cohort study of cardiac arrest patients treated by layperson CPR and one model of automated external defibrillator (AED) as part of the Public Access Defibrillation Trial (n=26). CPR was measured using software that integrates the event log, ECG signal, and thoracic impedance signal. We assessed chest compression fraction (proportion of attempted resuscitation spent performing chest compressions), prompted compression fraction (proportion of attempted resuscitation spent performing compressions during AED-prompted periods), compression rate, and compressions per minute. RESULTS Of the 26 cases, 13 presented with ventricular fibrillation and 13 with nonshockable rhythms. Overall, during the period when patients did not have spontaneous circulation, the median chest compression fraction was 34% (IQR 17-48%), median prompted chest compression fraction was 49% (IQR 30-66%), and the median chest compression rate was 96/min (IQR 90-110/min). Taken together, the median chest compression delivered per minute among all arrests was 29 (IQR 20-42). CPR characteristics differed according to initial rhythm: median chest compression per minute was 20 (IQR 13-29) among ventricular fibrillation and 42 (IQR 28-47) among nonshockable rhythms (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS In this study of trained laypersons, CPR varied substantially and often did not achieve guideline parameters. The findings suggest a need to improve CPR training, consider changes to CPR protocols, and/or improve the AED-rescuer interface.

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “BIPHASIC Trial: A Randomized Comparison of Fixed Lower Versus Escalating Higher Energy Levels for Defibrillation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest”

We appreciate the interest of Tang and colleagues, who have made substantial contributions to advancing care for patients with cardiac arrest. We provide additional information here to clarify the issues they raise, beginning with their last point. The letter expresses concern about an imbalance between groups1 in the incidence of asystole as an initial rhythm. However, the multishock groups, on which the primary end point is based, are nearly balanced: 2 of 55 versus 0 of 51 patients initially in asystole. The letter expresses concern about aggregating first and subsequent shocks in the primary analysis. An abstract of our study reported separate results for subsequent shocks in which energy levels differ most between groups, revealing a larger advantage for higher-energy shocks: ventricular fibrillation termination, …

EFFICACY OFLOWER-ENERGYBIPHASICSHOCKS FORTRANSTHORACICDEFIBRILLATION: A FOLLOW-UPCLINICALSTUDY

Objective. This clinical study prospectively evaluated the first-shock defibrillation efficacy of 150-joule impedance-compensated, 200-µF biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) shocks in patients with electrically-induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), and compared it with a historical control group treated with 200-J monophasic damped sine (MDS) shocks. Methods. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in patients undergoing electrophysiologic (EP) testing for ventricular arrhythmias or testing of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). A 150-J shock was delivered as the primary therapy to terminate induced arrhythmias in the EP group, and as a “rescue” shock when a single ICD shock failed to terminate the arrhythmias in the ICD group. Results. Ninety-six patients received study shocks. The preshock rhythm was classified as VF in 77 patients and as ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 19 patients. First-shock success rates for VF and VT were 75 out of 77 (97.4%) and 19 out of 19 (100%) for the 150-J BTE compared with the historical control rates of 61 out of 68 (89.7%) and 29 out of 31 (94%) for 200-J MDS. The first-shock success rate for VF treated with 150-J BTE was technically equivalent to that of 200-J MDS (p = 0.001). The transthoracic impedance did not vary between groups, yet the peak current delivered by the 150-J BTE shock was about 50% lower. Conclusions. This study demonstrated that 150-J shocks of this impedance-compensated, 200-µF BTE waveform provided very high efficacy for defibrillation of short duration, electrically-induced VF. These lower-energy biphasic shocks had a success rate equivalent to that of 200-J MDS shocks, and they provided this efficacy while exposing patients to much less current than the monophasic shocks.