Comparison of Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality in Classic Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Events Using Video Review*. Issue 9 (September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taeb, Mahsheed; Levin, Amanda B.; Spaeder, Michael C.; Schwartz, Jamie M.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric critical care medicine. Volume 19:Issue 9(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-09
• Subjects: cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation -- intensive care -- quality -- resuscitation -- video; Pediatric intensive care -- Periodicals; Pediatric emergencies -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001644
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1529-7535

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To assess differences in cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality in classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation events using video recordings of actual pediatric cardiac arrest events. Design: Single-center, prospective, observational trial. Setting: Tertiary-care pediatric teaching hospital, cardiac ICU. Patients: All patients admitted to the pediatric cardiac ICU with cardiopulmonary resuscitation events lasting greater than 2 minutes captured on video. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Seventeen events comprising 264.5 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were included: 11 classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation events (87.5 min) and six extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation events (177 min). Events were divided into 30-second epochs, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality markers were assessed using video and telemetry data review of goal endpoints: end-tidal carbon dioxide greater than or equal to 15 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 30 mm Hg, chest compression fraction greater than 80% per epoch, and chest compression rate between 100 and 120 chest compression per minute. Additionally, each chest compression pause (hands-off event) was recorded and timed. When compared with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation epochs were more likely to have end-tidal carbon dioxide greater than or equal to 15 mm Hg (56% vs 6.2%; p = 0.01) and provide chest compression between 100 and 120 times per minute (112 vs 134 chest compression per minute; p < 0.001). No difference was found between classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in compliance with diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 30 mm Hg (38% classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs 30% extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation). There were 135 hands-off events: 52 in classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 83 in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation ( p = 0.12). Conclusions: Classic cardiopulmonary resuscitation had superior adherence to end-tidal carbon dioxide goals and chest compression rate guidelines than extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.