Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31411632›Full record

Trial reportJAMA cardiology2019

Optimal Combination of Compression Rate and Depth During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Functionally Favorable Survival.

Sue Duval, Paul E Pepe, Tom P Aufderheide, Jeffrey M Goodloe, Guillaume Debaty, José Labarère, Atsushi Sugiyama, Demetris Yannopoulos

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sue DuvalCardiovascular Division, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.
Paul E PepeDepartment of Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Tom P AufderheideDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Jeffrey M GoodloeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Tulsa.
Guillaume DebatyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital of Grenoble Alps, Grenoble, France.
José LabarèreDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital of Grenoble Alps, Grenoble, France.
Atsushi SugiyamaDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Toho University, Tokyo, Japan.
Demetris YannopoulosCardiovascular Division, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Previous studies of basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) indicate that both chest compression rate (CCR) and chest compression depth (CCD) each are associated with survival probability after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, an optimal CCR-CCD combination has yet to be identified, particularly with respect to age, sex, presenting cardiac rhythm, and CPR adjunct use. Objectives: To identify an ideal CCR-CCD combination associated with the highest probability of functionally favorable survival and to assess whether this combination varies with respect to age, sex, presenting cardiac rhythm, or CPR adjunct use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data collected between June 2007 and November 2009 from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical trials network registry of out-of-hospital and in-hospital emergency care provided by 9-1-1 system agencies participating in the network across the United States and Canada (n = 150). The study sample included 3643 patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and for whom CCR and CCD had been simultaneously recorded during an NIH clinical trial of a CPR adjunct. Subgroup analyses included evaluations according to age, sex, presenting cardiac rhythm, and application of a CPR adjunct. Data analysis was performed from September to November 2018. Interventions: Standard out-of-hospital cardiac arrest interventions compliant with the concurrent American Heart Association guidelines as well as use of the CPR adjunct device in half of the patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The optimal combination of CCR-CCD associated with functionally favorable survival (modified Rankin scale ≤3) overall and by age, sex, presenting cardiac rhythm, and CPR adjunct use. Results: Of 3643 patients, 2346 (64.4%) were men; the mean (SD) age was 67.5 (15.7) years. The identified optimal CCR-CCD for all patients was 107 compressions per minute and a depth of 4.7 cm. When CPR was performed within 20% of this value, survival probability was significantly higher (6.0% vs 4.3% outside that range; odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07-1.94; P = .02). The optimal CCR-CCD combination remained similar regardless of age, sex, presenting cardiac rhythm, or CPR adjunct use. The identified optimal CCR-CCD was associated with significantly higher probabilities of survival when the CPR device was used compared with standard CPR (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.38; P = .03), and the device's effectiveness was dependent on being near the target CCR-CCD combination. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that the combination of 107 compressions per minute and a depth of 4.7 cm is associated with significantly improved outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The results merit further investigation and prospective validation.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAgedCardiopulmonary ResuscitationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeart RateHumansMaleOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestPressureRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateThoracic WallTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31411632
PMCPMC6694399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.