A few years ago we wrote about the punnily named ResQPOD, pictured on top, an impedance-threshold device that prevents air from re-entering the lungs to assist with cardiac filling. The Lancet has just published a study comparing standard CPR to CPR using ResQPod combined with another assist device called the ResQPump (side below), both from Advanced Circulatory Systems, Inc (Roseville, MN).
From the abstract:
Findings
2470 provisionally enrolled patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. 813 (68%) of 1201 patients assigned to the standard CPR group (controls) and 840 (66%) of 1269 assigned to intervention CPR received designated CPR and were included in the final analyses. 47 (6%) of 813 controls survived to hospital discharge with favourable neurological function compared with 75 (9%) of 840 patients in the intervention group (odds ratio 1·58, 95% CI 1·07—2·36; p=0·019]. 74 (9%) of 840 patients survived to 1 year in the intervention group compared with 48 (6%) of 813 controls (p=0·03), with equivalent cognitive skills, disability ratings, and emotional-psychological statuses in both groups. The overall major adverse event rate did not differ between groups, but more patients had pulmonary oedema in the intervention group (94 [11%] of 840) than did controls (62 [7%] of 813; p=0·015).
Interpretation
On the basis of our findings showing increased effectiveness and generalisability of the study intervention, active compression-decompression CPR with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure should be considered as an alternative to standard CPR to increase long-term survival after cardiac arrest.
Full abstract in Lancet: Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomised trial
Good summary from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: New CPR devices save lives, Medical College study finds…
Study info and product pages: THE RESQ TRIAL…
