Hands-On Times, Adherence to Recommendations and Variance in Execution among Three Different CPR Algorithms: A...

Alternative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) algorithms, introduced to improve outcomes after cardiac arrest, have so far not been compared in randomized trials with established CPR guidelines.

286 physician teams were confronted with simulated cardiac arrests and randomly allocated to one of three versions of a CPR algorithm: (1) current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines ("ILCOR"), (2) the cardiocerebral resuscitation ("CCR") protocol (3 cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions with no ventilation), or (3) a local interpretation of the current guidelines ("Arnsberg", immediate insertion of a supraglottic airway and cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions). The primary endpoint was percentage of hands-on time.

Median percentage of hands-on time was 88 (interquartile range (IQR) 6) in "ILCOR" teams, 90 (IQR 5) in "CCR" teams (p = 0.001 vs. "ILCOR"), and 89 (IQR 4) in "Arnsberg" teams (p = 0.032 vs. "ILCOR"; p = 0.10 vs. "CCR"). "ILCOR" teams delivered fewer chest compressions and deviated more from allocated targets than "CCR" and "Arnsberg" teams. "CCR" teams demonstrated the least within-team and between-team variance.

Compared to current ILCOR guidelines, two alternative CPR algorithms advocating cycles of uninterrupted chest compressions resulted in very similar hands-on times, fewer deviations from targets, and less within-team and between-team variance in execution.