This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arntz, H.-R. Articles by Schultheiss, H.-P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Arntz, H.-R. Articles by Schultheiss, H.-P. Related Collections CPR and emergency cardiac care

(Circulation. 2001;104:768.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Clinical Investigation and Reports

Phased Chest and Abdominal Compression-Decompression Versus Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Hans-Richard Arntz, MD; Rahul Agrawal, MD; Hans Richter, MD; Stefan Schmidt, MD; Tanja Rescheleit, MD; Marlies Menges, MD; Hubert Burbach, MD; Joachim Schröder, MD; Heinz-Peter Schultheiss, MD

From the Benjamin Franklin Medical Center, Free University of Berlin, Germany.

Correspondence to Priv-Doz Dr Hans-Richard Arntz, Benjamin Franklin Medical Ctr, Free University of Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12 200 Berlin, Germany. E-mail arntz{at}ukbf.fu-berlin.de

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.

Key Words: cardiopulmonary resuscitation • death, sudden • heart-assist device

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. P. Anstadt and J. E. Lowe Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 487 - 506. [Full Text]

				D. Muller, R. Agrawal, and H.-R. Arntz How Sudden Is Sudden Cardiac Death? Circulation, September 12, 2006; 114(11): 1146 - 1150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Part 6: CPR Techniques and Devices Circulation, December 13, 2005; 112(24_suppl): IV-47 - IV-50. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Part 4: Advanced Life Support Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22_suppl): III-25 - III-54. [Full Text] [PDF]