Active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation--instructor and student manual for teaching and training. Part I: The workshop.

In an attempt to standardize the teaching and training of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR), a group of leading emergency physicians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, paramedics and nurses with practical, theoretical, educational, and scientific experience in the subject met in June 1995. The group was called The International Working Group of Teaching and Training Active Compression-Decompression CPR. The group was 'born' as a result of the first International Conference of Active Compression-Decompression CPR held in Copenhagen in March 1995. The following paper describes the background, development and text of and ACD-CPR course manual for both students and instructors.

Comparison of exertion required to perform standard and active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE: Active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) utilizes a hand-held suction device with a pressure gauge that enables the operator to compress as well as actively decompress the chest. This new CPR method improves hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters when compared with standard CPR. ACD-CPR is easy to perform but may be more labor intensive. The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the work required to perform ACD and standard CPR. METHODS: Cardiopulmonary testing was performed on six basic cardiac life support- and ACD-trained St. Paul, MN fire-fighter personnel during performance of 10 min each of ACD and standard CPR on a mannequin equipped with a compression gauge. The order of CPR techniques was determined randomly with > 1 h between each study. Each CPR method was performed at 80 compressions/min (timed with a metronome), to a depth of 1.5-2 inches, and with a 50% duty cycle. RESULTS: Baseline cardiopulmonary measurements were similar at rest prior to performance of both CPR methods. During standard and ACD-CPR, respectively, rate-pressure product was 18.2 +/- 3.0 vs. 23.8 +/- 1.7 (x 1000, P < 0.01); mean oxygen consumption 15.98 +/- 2.29 vs. 20.07 +/- 2.10 ml/kg/min or 4.6 +/- 0.7 vs. 5.7 +/- 0.6 METS (P < 0.01); carbon dioxide production 1115.7 +/- 110 vs. 1459.1 +/- 176 ml/min; respiratory exchange ratio 0.88 +/- 0.04 vs. 0.92 +/- 0.04 (P = NS); and minute ventilation 35.5 +/- 5.1 vs. 45.6 +/- 9.2 l/min (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 25% more work is required to perform ACD-CPR compared with standard CPR. Both methods require subanaerobic energy expenditure and can therefore be sustained for a sufficient length of time by most individuals to optimize resuscitation efforts. Due to the slightly higher work requirement, ACD-CPR may be more difficult to perform compared with standard CPR for long periods of time, particularly by individuals unaccustomed to the workload requirement of CPR, in general.

Evaluation of active compression-decompression CPR in victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE--Active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) appears to improve ventilation and coronary perfusion when compared with standard CPR. The objective was to evaluate potential benefits of this new CPR technique in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in St Paul, Minn. DESIGN--Ten-month, prospective, randomized parallel-group design. SETTING--St Paul, Minn, population 270,000. PATIENTS--All normothermic victims of nontraumatic cardiac arrest older than 8 years who received CPR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Return of spontaneous circulation, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), return of baseline neurological function (alert and oriented to person, place, and time), survival to hospital discharge, survival to hospital discharge with return of baseline neurological function, and complications. RESULTS--Seventy-seven patients received standard CPR and 53 patients received ACD CPR. The mean emergency medical services call response interval was less than 3.5 minutes. When all patients were considered, a higher percentage of ACD CPR patients had a return of spontaneous circulation and were admitted to the ICU vs standard CPR (45% vs 31%, and 40% vs 26%, respectively), but these trends were not statistically significant (P < .10 and P < .10). No statistically significant differences were found between hospital discharge rates (12 [23%] of 53 for ACD CPR vs 13 [17%] of 77 for standard CPR), return to baseline neurological function (10 [19%] of 53 for ACD CPR vs 13 [17%] of 77 for standard CPR), or return to baseline neurological function at hospital discharge (nine [17%] of 53 for ACD CPR vs 12 [16%] of 77 for standard CPR). Return of spontaneous circulation, ICU admission, and neurological recovery in both CPR groups were highly correlated with downtime (time from collapse to emergency medical system personnel arrival to the scene in witnessed arrests). With less than 10 minutes' downtime, survival to the ICU was 59% (19/32) with ACD CPR and 33% (16/49) with standard CPR (P < .02), return to baseline neurological function was 31% (10/32) with ACD CPR and 20% (10/49) with standard CPR (P = .27), and hospital discharge rate was 38% (12/32) with ACD CPR and 20% (10/49) with standard CPR (P = .17). Complication rates in patients admitted to the hospital were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS--This study demonstrates that ACD CPR appears to be more effective than standard CPR in a well-defined subset of victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during the critical early phases of resuscitation. Based on this study, a larger study should be performed to evaluate the potential long-term benefits of ACD CPR.