Shock outcome prediction before and after CPR: a comparative study of manual and automated active compression-decompression CPR.

We report on a study designed to compare the relative efficacy of manual CPR (M-CPR) and automated mechanical CPR (ACD-CPR) provided by an active compression-decompression (ACD) device. The ECG signals of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients of cardiac aetiology were analysed just prior to, and immediately after, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to assess the likelihood of successful defibrillation at these time points. The cardioversion outcome prediction (COP) measure previously developed by our group was used to quantify the probability of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after counter-shock and was used as a measure of the efficacy of CPR. An initial validation study using COP to predict shock outcome from the patient data set resulted in a performance of 60% specificity achieved at 100% sensitivity on a blind test of the data. This is comparable with previous studies and provided confidence in the robustness of the technique across hardware platforms. Significantly, the COP marker also displayed an ability to stratify according to outcomes: asystole, ventricular fibrillation (VF), pulseless electrical activity (PEA), normal sinus rhythm (NSR). We then used the validated COP marker to analyse the ECG data record just prior to and immediately after the chest compression segments. This was initially performed for 87 CPR segments where VF was both the pre- and post-CPR waveform. An increase in the mean COP values was found for both CPR types. A signed rank sum test found the increase due to manual CPR not to be significant (p>0.05) whereas the automated CPR was found to be significant (p<0.05). This increase was larger for the automated CPR (1.26, p=0.024) than for the manual CPR (0.99, p=0.124). These results indicate that the application of CPR does indeed provide beneficial preparation of the heart prior to defibrillation therapy whether manual or automated CPR is applied. The COP marker shows promise as a definitive, quantitative determinant of the immediate positive effect of both types of CPR regardless of the details of use. In work of a more exploratory nature we then used the validated COP marker to analyse the ECG pre- and post-CPR for all rhythm types (212 traces). We show a significant increase in the COP measure (p<0.001 in both cases) as indicated by a shift in the median COP marker distribution values. This increase was more pronounced for automated ACD-CPR than for manual CPR. However, a detailed statistical analysis carried out between the groups adjusted for pre-CPR value showed no significant difference between the two methods of CPR (p=0.20). Similarly, adjusting for length of CPR showed no significant difference between the groups. Secondary, subgroup analysis of the ECG according to the length of time for which CPR was performed showed that both types of CPR led to an increase in the likelihood of successful defibrillation after increasing durations of CPR, however results were less reliable after longer periods of continuous CPR.