
==== Front
Resusc Plus
Resusc Plus
Resuscitation Plus
2666-5204
Elsevier

S2666-5204(24)00211-X
10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100760
100760
Review
Effectiveness of combinations of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation, impedance threshold devices and head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review
Main Shona E. g
Sidebottom David B. david.sidebottom@scas.nhs.uk
ci⁎
Deakin Charles D. cdef
Raitt James ah
Pocock Helen d
Hannah Julian bef
Plumb James O.M. bcef
a Thames Valley Air Ambulance, United Kingdom
b Hampshire and Isle of Wight Air Ambulance, United Kingdom
c University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
d South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
e Integrative Physiology and Critical Illness Group, Clinical and Experimental Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
f Perioperative and Critical Care Theme, NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
g University Hospitals Dorset, United Kingdom
h Frimley Park Hospital, United Kingdom
i Södertälje Sjukhus, Stockholm, Sweden
⁎ Corresponding author at: South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom. david.sidebottom@scas.nhs.uk
09 9 2024
12 2024
09 9 2024
20 10076011 6 2024
18 8 2024
21 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Objective

This review summarises the current evidence base for combinations of neuroprotective CPR adjuncts (active compression-decompression chest compressions, impedance threshold devices, and head-up positioning) during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods

A systematic search (PROSPERO registration CRD42023432302) was performed in English on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in August 2023, and repeated in February 2024. All randomised and observational studies (not abstracts) reporting on any combination of the aforementioned CPR adjuncts were included. Papers were screened independently by two researchers, with a third reviewer acting as tiebreaker. Out-of-hospital, non-traumatic, cardiac arrests in patients >18 years were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

Eight of 1172 unique articles identified in the initial searches were included, with five randomised controlled trials and three observational studies. No randomised trial investigated a bundle of all three interventions. All randomised controlled trials were at intermediate or high risk of bias. Neurologically favourable survival was greater in patients treated with an impedance threshold device and active compression-decompression CPR when compared to standard CPR (8.9% vs 5.8%, p = 0.019) in the largest existing randomised trial. Conflicting results were found in observational studies comparing the complete neuroprotective bundle to standard CPR.

Conclusions

This review was limited by small study numbers and overlapping samples, which precluded a meta-analysis. Limited data suggests that combinations of adjuncts to improve cerebral perfusion during CPR may improve survival with favourable neurological outcome. A randomised controlled trial is required to establish whether combining all three together results in improved outcomes.

Keywords

Out of hospital cardiac arrest
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Impedance threshold device
Active compression-decompression
Head-up CPR (HUP-CPR)
Advanced life support
Abbreviations

CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

OHCA Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

ACD Active compression/decompression

ITD Impedance threshold device

CePP Cerebral perfusion pressure

HUP Head-up positioning

ACE Automated self-elevating backboard

ILCOR International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Maintaining cerebral perfusion during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is vital to achieve good neurological outcome following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).1 Maximising cerebral arterial pressure and minimising central venous and intrathoracic pressure optimises cerebral perfusion pressure (CePP) and therefore cerebral oxygen delivery during CPR.2, 3 Through these mechanisms, a number of CPR adjuncts including active compression-decompression (ACD) CPR, impedance threshold devices (ITDs), and head-up positioning (HUP) may improve CePP and have the potential to improve survival and neurological outcome following cardiac arrest.2, 3, 4

ACD-CPR generates a negative intrathoracic pressure during the decompression phase of chest compressions via a suction cup applied to the anterior chest wall. ITDs augment this effect by restricting the influx of air into the lungs that would otherwise occur when a negative intrathoracic pressure is generated, thereby enhancing and prolonging negative intrathoracic pressure.5 In combination, these adjuncts optimise venous return and ventricular filling during the diastolic phase of CPR, thereby improving mean arterial pressure and CePP.3, 4, 5 HUP, which can be delivered via an automated self-elevating backboard (ACE-CPR), may additionally optimise cerebral blood flow during CPR by increasing venous drainage from the head and neck and decreasing intracranial pressure.6, 7 The synergistic effects of these three combined interventions, henceforth referred to as the neuroprotective CPR bundle, further optimises CePP during CPR in animal and human cadaver models.8

Despite promising preclinical data and observational research spanning over 20 years,5, 9, 10 these devices, when used in isolation, have generally failed to show an improvement in survival and in particular, neurologically intact survival in clinical trials.11 More recently however, findings from a number of cohort studies suggest that using combinations of these devices may improve outcome from OHCA.12, 13

The urgent need to improve the evidence base for neuroprotective CPR has recently been highlighted in Resuscitation,14 while optimisation of CPR is an International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) research priority.15 A recent UK pre-hospital modified Delphi study ranked interventions beyond current ALS guidelines as one of the top three focuses for research over the next five years.16 This systematic review is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first to summarise the current evidence base for combinations of neuroprotective CPR adjuncts during OHCA. It is additionally aligned with priority setting work with patients and family members,17 where the urgent need to identify on-scene interventions to improve outcomes from OHCA has been identified.16

Methods

This is a systematic review of strategies to optimise CPR during OHCA, involving ACD-CPR, ITDs, and HUP/ACE-CPR. The protocol was pre-registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023432302).18 The review is reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement (2020) and associated PRISMA-S extension for literature searches.19, 20

Searches

The peer-reviewed search strategy was reviewed by an information specialist and targeted any combination of keywords and synonyms relating to the cardiopulmonary resuscitation adjuncts specified in the research question. Searches were executed by the information specialist in English on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register) on August 10, 2023. Databases were searched from January 1, 1990. Additionally, the WHO international clinical trials registry platform was searched for planned or ongoing clinical trials. The search strategies are available in full online.18 The search was repeated on February 15, 2024 to identify any additional eligible articles published after the date of the original search.

Types of participants

Patients with OHCA were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria were paediatric patients (<18 years), patients where resuscitation was not attempted, and traumatic cardiac arrest. Animal and human cadaveric studies were also excluded.

Types of study

All RCTs and observational studies were eligible for inclusion (including cohort, case–control, case series, and individual case reports). Abstracts alone were not included.

Types of interventions

Eligible studies included any combination (2 or more) of ACD-CPR, an ITD, and HUP/ACE-CPR.

ACD-CPR was defined as an intervention where a device is attached by negative pressure to the sternum, allowing active physical compression and decompression of the chest. An ITD was defined as equipment which restricts airflow into the lungs during the recoil or decompression phase of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, thereby lowering intrathoracic pressure. HUP-CPR was defined as any intervention where cardiopulmonary resuscitation is performed with the head and thorax actively elevated from a resting position.

Outcomes

The pre-defined co-primary outcomes were good neurological outcome by any measure and survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital admission.

Selection, screening and data extraction

The output of all searches was imported into Rayyan review management software.21 Automated duplicate screening was performed; all identified duplicates were manually verified by a reviewer. Two reviewers, blinded to each other’s decisions, independently screened remaining studies against the pre-defined eligibility criteria, first by title and abstract and subsequently by full text review. After unblinding, disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer where consensus could not be achieved.

Two reviewers extracted data into a standardised data-collection form. Extracted data was cross-checked by the other reviewer and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Extracted data included study design, study methodology, patient demographics and baseline data (age, gender, rhythm, witnessed arrest, bystander interventions, duration prior to emergency services arrival, duration of cardiac arrest), interventions and control conditions, study outcomes, and results. Data is available from the authors on request.

Data synthesis and risk of bias assessment

Data was summarised and explored in tabular form. Numbers of participants and events, odds ratios, and p values were extracted for all outcomes where reported. While a meta-analysis was planned, this was abandoned due to limited, overlapping, and heterogeneous data.

The risk of bias in included studies was assessed by consensus between two reviewers (SEM, DBS). Randomised controlled trials were assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool while observational trials were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale as laid out in the Cochrane handbook.22

Results

Overall, 1172 unique articles were identified, of which eight were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1),12, 13, 4, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Some participants in five of the papers selected for inclusion overlapped with at least one of the other papers. These papers were included due to the limited amount of literature identified and are clearly marked in all tables. One additional paper meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria was identified on the repeat search (February 15, 2024) and was subsequently included in the analysis.Fig. 1 Summary of the results of the search strategy.

Characteristics of included studies are summarised according to population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes in Table 1. Included studies collected data spanning from 1997 to 2020 across France, Germany, and the USA. Three RCTs (n = 2944) compared standard CPR (S-CPR) with ACD in combination with an ITD,23, 25, 26 two RCTs (n = 421) compared ACD-only CPR to ACD in combination with an ITD,4, 24 two observational studies (with overlapping participant groups) compared S-CPR with the neuroprotective CPR bundle using propensity matching,12, 13 and one before/after observational study (n = 2162) compared ACD in combination with an ITD with the neuroprotective bundle.27Table 1 Study characteristics.

Study	Data source	Country	Data collection	Study Design	Blinding	Main inclusion/exclusion criteria.	Standard/control management.	Intervention(s)	Primary Outcome	
ACD vs. ACD+ITD	
 Plaisance, 20004	−	France	1997	Randomised controlled trial	Clinician & assessor blinded to ITD (sham or functional)	OHCA in patients ≥18 years old with non-traumatic aetiology. Patients with hypothermia, terminal illness, or BLS duration >30 mins were excluded.	ERC and AHA guidelines.	(1) ITD or (2) ACD plus ITD. In addition, endotracheal intubation, femoral arterial line, femoral central venous catheter for monitoring.	ETC02, diastolic blood pressure, coronary perfusion pressure and time to ROSC	
 Plaisance, 200424	−	France	1999–2000	Randomised controlled trial	Clinician blinded to ITD (sham or functional)	OHCA in patients ≥18 years old with non-traumatic aetiology. Patients with hypothermia, an obvious non-survivable injury, terminal illness, or BLS duration >30 mins were excluded.	ERC 2000 guidelines. All patients included were intubated and ventilated with a portable pressure-cycle ventilator.	(1) ACD plus sham ITD or (2) ACD plus active ITD.	24 h survival	
S-CPR vs ACD+ITD	
 Wolcke, 200323	−	Germany	1999–2002	Randomised controlled trial	Neither clinician nor assessor blinded	OHCA with presumed cardiac aetiology. Patients with hypothermia, a DNR order, terminal illness, or downtime >15 mins prior to initiation of CPR were excluded.	ERC 1998 guidelines and AHA 2000 guidelines. All patients were intubated prior to randomisation.	ACD (CardioPump device) plus ITD (ResQValve).	1 h survival post witnessed arrest	
 Aufderheide, 201125	Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed Analysis	USA	2005–2010	Randomised controlled trial	Assessor blinded	OHCA in patients ≥18 years old with presumed cardiac aetiology. Patients with a DNR order, recent sternotomy, or obvious signs of death were excluded.	AHA 2005 guidelines.	ACD (CardioPump device) plus ITD (ResQValve). The ITD could be used in combination with a facemask or advanced airway.	Modified Rankin Scale ≤3 at hospital discharge	
 Frascone, 201326	Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Prehospital Resuscitation Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed Analysis	USA	2005–2010	Secondary analysis of RCT (Aufderheide 2011)	Assessor blinded	OHCA in patients ≥18 years old of any non-traumatic aetiology. Patients with a DNR order, recent sternotomy, or obvious signs of death were excluded.	AHA 2005 guidelines.	ACD (CardioPump device) plus ITD (ResQValve). The ITD could be used in combination with a facemask or advanced airway.	Modified Rankin Scale ≤3 at hospital discharge	
ACD+ITD vs. neuroprotective CPR bundle (ACD, ITD, and ACE-CPR)	
 Pepe, 201927	International Device Assisted Controlled Sequential Elevation CPR Registry	USA	2014–2017	Before/after study (prospective)	N/A	All consecutive OHCA	AHA guidance as of 2015 with addition of LUCAS device and an ITD	Standard management plus 20 degrees head elevation (reverse Trendelenberg) in addition to a package of CRM training.	Clinical safety and feasibility of bundle	
 Moore, 202212	International Device Assisted Controlled Sequential Elevation CPR Registry	USA	2019–2020a	Registry study (prospective)	N/A	OHCA in patients ≥18 years old. Patients currently in prison were excluded.	Control (S-CPR) patients were extracted from three randomised controlled trials including the ROC trial above (Aufderheide 2011). AHA 2005 guidelines onwards.	ACD (CardioPump device) or LUCAS 2.0/3.0, ITD (ResQValve), and EleGARD patient positioning system (stepwise elevation of the head and thorax to 22 cm and 9 cm respectively).	Survival to hospital discharge	
 Bachista, 200413	International Device Assisted Controlled Sequential Elevation CPR Registry	USA	2019–2021	Registry study (prospective)	N/A	OHCA with non-shockable rhythms in patients ≥18 years old of non-traumatic origin	Control (S-CPR) patients were extracted from two randomised controlled trials including the ROC trial above (Aufderheide 2011).	ACD (ResQPUMP or LUCAS), ITD (ResQPOD), and EleGARD patient positioning system (stepwise elevation of the head and thorax from 12/8cm, respectively to 24/12 cm, respectively over 2 min)	Survival to hospital discharge	
All patients were blinded to treatment allocation by nature of cardiac arrest.

OHCA=Out of hospital cardiac arrest; ACD=Active compression-decompression; ICD Impedence threshold device; ERC=European Resuscitation Council; AHA=American Heart Association; S-CPR=Standard CPR; ACE-CPR=Automated controlled-elevation CPR; LUCAS=Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System; CRM=Crew resource management.

a ACE-CPR cases collected between these dates, control cases collected from previous randomised controlled trials.

Risk of bias

An intermediate risk of bias was identified in two of the five RCTs included, while a high risk of bias was identified in the remaining three (Table 2). The most common reasons for higher risk of bias were issues with the randomisation process and risk of selective reporting of outcomes. The observational studies were rated as low risk of bias (Table 3).Table 2 Risk of bias assessments for included randomised controlled trials (n = 5).

Study	Experimental	Comparator	Outcome	Weight	Domain 1: Randomisation process	Domain 2: Deviations from the intended interventions	Domain 3: Missing outcome data	Domain 4: Measurement of the outcome	Domain 5: Selection of the reported result	Overall risk of bias	
Plaisance, 2000	ACD+ITD CPR	ACD CPR	Number discharged from hospital	1							
Wolcke, 2003	ACD+ITD CPR	S-CPR	CPC and OPC at hospital discharge	1							
Plaisance, 2004	ACD+ITD CPR	ACD CPR	CPC at hospital discharge	1							
Aufderheide, 2011	ACD+ITD CPR	S-CPR	MRS at hospital discharge	1							
Frascone, 2013	ACD+ITD CPR	S-CPR	CPC, OPC and MRS at 1 year	1							
ACD=Active compression-decompression; ITD=Impedence threshold devce; CPR=Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; S-CPR=Standard CPR; CPC=Cerebral Performance Category; OPC=Overall Performance Category; MRS=Modified Rankin Score.

Table 3 Risk of bias for the included observational trials (n = 3) using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

Study ID	Experimental	Comparator	Outcome	Selection	Comparability	Outcome	Overall	Risk of Bias	
Pepe, 2019	ACD+ITD CPR	Neuroprotective CPR bundle (ACD, ITD, and ACE-CPR)	Clinical safety and feasibility of bundle	****	*	***	8/9	Low	
Moore, 2022	S-CPR	Neuroprotective CPR bundle (ACD, ITD, and ACE-CPR)	Survival to hospital discharge	***	**	***	8/9	Low	
Bachista, 2004	S-CPR	Neuroprotective CPR bundle (ACD, ITD, and ACE-CPR)	Survival to hospital discharge	***	**	***	8/9	Low	
ACD=Active compression-decompression; ITD=Impedence threshold devce; CPR=Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ACE-CPR=Automated controlled elevation CPR; S-CPR=Standard CPR.

Summary measures

Measures of effect are presented in Table 4. A neurologically favourable outcome varied from 1.1% to 10.3% in the S-CPR group and between 5.0% and 13.6% when ACD was combined with an ITD.12, 13, 23, 25, 26 A neurologically favourable outcome was higher with ACD+ITD compared with S-CPR in one RCT (OR 1.42 [95% CI 1.04–3.27]),26 and not significantly different in another (13.6% with ACD+ITD vs. 10.3% with S-CPR, p = 1.0).23 A neurologically favourable outcome was more likely with the neuroprotective bundle when compared with S-CPR in one observational study (OR 3.87 [95% CI 1.27–11.78]),13 and was not significantly different in another.12Table 4 Study outcomes.

Study	Neurologically favourable outcome	Survival to discharge	Survival to hospital/ICU admission	ROSC	
	S-CPR (%)	ACD (%)	ACD+ITD (%)	ACE-CPR (%)	Significance test	S-CPR (%)	ACD (%)	ACD+ITD (%)	ACE-CPR (%)	Significance test	S-CPR (%)	ACD (%)	ACD+ITD (%)	ACE-CPR (%)	Significance test	S-CPR (%)	ACD (%)	ACD+ITD (%)	ACE-CPR (%)	Significance test	
ACD vs. ACD+ITD	
 Plaisance, 20004	−	Not reported	Not reported	−	Not reported	−	1/10 (10.0)	1/11 (9.1)	−	p = 0.9	−	Not reported	Not reported	−	Not reported	−	2/10 (20)	4/11 (36)	−	p = 0.04	
 Plaisance, 200424	−	8/200 (4.0)a	10/200 (5.0)a	−	OR 1.26 (95% CI 0.49–3.27); p = 0.63	−	8/200 (4.0)	10/200 (5.0)	−	OR 1.26 (95% CI 0.49–3.27); p = 0.63	−	57/200 (28.5)	79/200 (39.5)	−	OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.08–2.49); p = 0.02	−	77/200 (38.5)	96/200 (48)	−	OR 1.48 (95% CI 0.99–2.19); p = 0.056	
S-CPR vs ACD+ITD	
 Wolcke, 200323	11/107 (10.3)b	−	14/103 (13.6)b	−	OR 0.8 (95% CI 0.6–3.0); p = 1.0	14/107 (13.1)	−	19/103 (18.4)	−	OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.6–3.0); p = 0.41	34/107 (32)c	−	53/103 (51)c	−	OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.2–3.9); p = 0.006	40/103 (37)	−	57/103 (55)	−	OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.1–3.5); p = 0.016	
 Aufderheide, 201125	47/813 (5.8)b	−	75/840 (8.9)b	−	0.019	80/813 (9.8)	−	104/840 (12.8)	−	p = 0.12	216/813 (26.6)	−	237/840 (28.2)	−	Not significantd	324/813 (39.9)	−	343/840 (40.8)	−	Not significantd	
 Frascone, 201326	75/1335 (5.6)b	−	110/1403 (7.8)b	−	OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.04–1.95), p = 0.027	134/1335 (10.0)	−	165/1403 (11.8)	−	p = 0.16	376/1335 (28.2)	−	431/1403 (30.7)	−	Not significantd	537/1335 (40.2)	−	591/1403 (40.1)	−	Not significantd	
ACD+ITD vs. neuroprotective CPR bundle (ACD, ITD, and ACE-CPR)	
 Pepe, 201927	−	−	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	−	−	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	−	−	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	−	−	144/806 (17.9)	464/1356 (34.2)	p < 0.001	
 Moore, 2022e12	35/860 (4.1)a/b	−	−	13/222 (5.9)a/b	OR 1.47 (95% CI 0.76–2.82)	58/860 (6.7)	−	−	21/222 (9.5)	OR 1.44 (95% CI 0.86–2.44)	Not reported	−	−	Not reported	Not reported	282/860 (32.8)	−	−	74/222 (33.3)	OR 1.02 (95% CI 0.75–1.49	
 Bachista, 2024e13	4/353 (1.1)a/b	−	−	15/353 (4.2)a/b	OR 3.87 (95% CI 1.27–11.78)	10/353 (2.8)	−	−	27/353 (7.6)	OR 2.84 (95% CI, 1.35–5.96)	Not reported	−	−	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	−	−	Not reported	Not reported	
ROSC=Return of Spontaneous Circulation; CPR=Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; S-CPR=Standard CPR; ACD=Active compression-decompression; ITD=Impedence threshold devce; ACE-CPR=Automated controlled elevation CPR.

a Modified Rankin Score ≤3.

b Cerebral Perfusion Category 1 or 2.

c One hour after ICU admission.

d Value not reported by paper.

e Results after propensity score matching.

Survival to discharge ranged between 2.8% and 13.1% in the S-CPR groups,13, 23 between 5.0% and 18.4% where ACD was combined with an ITD,23, 24 and was 7.6% and 9.5% in the two observational studies reporting this measure for the neuroprotective bundle.12, 13 Only one, observational study reported a higher survival to discharge with the neuroprotective bundle when compared to S-CPR (2.8% vs 7.6%, OR 2.84 [95% CI 1.35–5.96]),13 while all other studies reporting this measure did not find a significant difference between the control and intervention arms.

Four articles reported survival to hospital/ICU admission, of which one demonstrated a significant difference between groups.23 A significant difference in ROSC between S-CPR and ACD combined with an ITD in one RCT (37% versus 55%, p = 0.016).23 A subsequent large RCT did not observe a difference in ROSC between S-CPR and ACD combined with an ITD (39.9% versus 40.8%, non-significant).25 No significant difference in ROSC was observed in the single study comparing S-CPR with the neuroprotective bundle where this was reported.12

Discussion

This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the evidence for combinations of neuroprotective CPR adjuncts during OHCA. A limited number of studies were identified, mostly at high risk of bias. The largest RCT was terminated early due to funding constraints and did not meet the target sample size deemed necessary according to the interim analysis.25 No published RCT was identified comparing any control group to the complete neuroprotective bundle (ACD, ITD and HUP-CPR).

Aufderheide and colleagues performed a prospective, randomised, assessor blinded, multicentre trial comparing ACD+ITD CPR with S-CPR.25 They found survival to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome was 5.8% (47/813) in the control group versus 8.9% (75/840) in the intervention group (p = 0.019, OR 1.58 [95% CI 1.07–2.36]). Importantly, in a secondary analysis this finding was robust to relaxation of the inclusion criteria from only patients with a presumed cardiac aetiology to all non-traumatic OHCAs (p = 0.027, OR 1.42 [95% CI 1.04–1.95]),26 increasing the robustness of these findings. Neither analysis observed a difference in ROSC. While a previous, small RCT comparing S-CPR to ACD+ITD CPR was not sufficiently powered to assess a difference in neurologically favourable outcome, it did identify a higher rate of ROSC, survival to 1 h after ICU admission (p = 0.006, OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.2–3.9]), and survival at 24 h within the intervention group.23 It is therefore notable that all RCTs comparing S-CPR to ACD+ITD CPR found significant differences in the primary outcome for which they were statistically powered. However, the relevance of these studies to present day is limited by technical and non-technical advances in cardiac arrest management, as well as demographic changes, that have taken place in the two decades since the start of participant recruitment.

Bachista and colleagues recently performed a propensity matched observational study using data from a U.S. national registry of patients with non-shockable rhythms who received the neuroprotective bundle (ResQPUMP; ZOLL Medical, Chelmsford, MA or LUCAS; Stryker Medical, Kalamazoo, MI, ResQPOD; ZOLL Medical, and EleGARD Patient Positioning System; AdvancedCPR Solutions, Edina, MN),13 compared to control data from patients managed with S-CPR in two historical large RCTs.11, 25 In unadjusted analyses, the likelihood of survival and survival with good neurological function was significantly higher in the group treated with the neuroprotective bundle (OR 3.09 [95% CI 1.64–5.81]). After propensity score and time interval matched analyses, the neuroprotective bundle was still associated with higher odds of survival with good neurological function (OR 3.87 [95% CI 1.27–11.78]). There were no statistically significant differences the rate of ROSC between the two groups.

This large and recent study provides a strong signal to the potential benefits of neuroprotective CPR, while noting that the benefits were particularly pronounced when the intervention was initiated within 15 min of the emergency call and that it was a non-randomised study. This is supported by earlier work suggesting a dose response relationship between time to initiation of the bundle and survival with favourable neurological outcome,12 and has physiological validity in that optimisation of CePP is likely to have the greatest effect when implemented prior to catastrophic irreversible anoxic cerebral injury. The control groups were however recruited from different geographical sites and were not contemporaneous and the authors of this study acknowledge this as a meaningful limitation.12, 13, 28

Strengths and limitations

This systematic review included a robust methodology with involvement of an information specialist in the design and execution of the comprehensive searches, as well as independent article screening and dual-assessor data extraction. The primary outcome was patient-centred.

The primary limitation of this review is the scarcity of evidence. One large RCT dominates the randomised studies, while heterogeneity of the control and intervention groups makes comparisons difficult. Data on the complete neuroprotective bundle originated entirely from observational studies, which while of generally good quality, are inherently at high risk of selection bias. A number of articles included overlapping samples in either the intervention or comparison groups, as highlighted in the results section. A further limitation was the timespan of data collection; included data spanned 1997 to 2020 and therefore multiple iterations of AHA/ERC guidelines in addition to demographic changes that may affect the prognostic features of patients presenting with OHCA.

Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrates that clinical evidence for the benefits of the neuroprotective CPR bundle is scarce, but that combinations of CPR devices that act to enhance cerebral blood flow during CPR may improve outcome following OHCA. It remains unclear which specific endpoints (e.g. ROSC, survival, survival with good neurological outcome), if any, may be improved by a neuroprotective CPR bundle during OHCA. Equipoise exists to support an appropriately powered randomised controlled trial with a patient-centred outcome to further investigate the efficacy of the neuroprotective CPR bundle during OHCA.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable as a systematic review.

Availability of data and materials

Links to the study protocol and search string can be found in the text and on the PROSPERO registry. The search string will become visible in PROSPERO on publication. All data generated during this study are included in this published article.

Funding sources/sponsors

The authors provided their time in kind for this work.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Shona E. Main: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. David B. Sidebottom: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Charles D. Deakin: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization. James Raitt: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization. Helen Pocock: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Julian Hannah: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. James O.M. Plumb: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and thank Barbara Pierce at Dorset NHS Library for their assistance with the search and Dr Paul Rees for peer reviewing the search strategy.
==== Refs
References

1 Perkins G.D. Handley A.J. Koster R.W. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015. Section 2. Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation Resuscitation 95 2015 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.015
2 Ryu H.H. Moore J.C. Yannopoulos D. The effect of head up cardiopulmonary resuscitation on cerebral and systemic hemodynamics Resuscitation 102 2016 29 34 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.01.033 26905388
3 Metzger A.K. Herman M. McKnite S. Tang W. Yannopoulos D. Improved cerebral perfusion pressures and 24-hr neurological survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest with active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure Crit Care Med 2012 40 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318246b9ad
4 Plaisance P. Lurie K.G. Payen D. Inspiratory impedance during active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized evaluation in patients in cardiac arrest Circulation 2000 101 10.1161/01.CIR.101.9.989 10618311
5 Lurie K.G. Coffeen P. Shultz J. McKnite S. Detloff B. Mulligan K. Improving active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation with an inspiratory impedance valve Circulation 1995 91 10.1161/01.CIR.91.6.1629 7805224
6 Kim D.W. Choi J.K. Won S.H. A new variant position of head-up CPR may be associated with improvement in the measurements of cranial near-infrared spectroscopy suggestive of an increase in cerebral blood flow in non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a prospective int Resuscitation 175 2022 159 166 10.1016/J.RESUSCITATION.2022.03.032 35395338
7 Debaty G. Do S.S. Metzger A. Tilting for perfusion: head-up position during cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves brain flow in a porcine model of cardiac arrest Resuscitation 87 2015 38 43 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.019 25447353
8 Moore J.C. Holley J. Segal N. Consistent head up cardiopulmonary resuscitation haemodynamics are observed across porcine and human cadaver translational models Resuscitation 132 2018 133 139 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.04.009 29702188
9 Moore J.C. Salverda B. Rojas-Salvador C. Lick M. Debaty G. Lurie K.G. Controlled sequential elevation of the head and thorax combined with active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an impedance threshold device improves neurological survival in a porcine model of cardiac arrest Resuscitation 158 2021 220 227 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.030 33027619
10 Kim T. Do S.S. Song K.J. The effect of resuscitation position on cerebral and coronary perfusion pressure during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in porcine cardiac arrest model Resuscitation 113 2017 101 107 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.02.008 28215591
11 Aufderheide T.P. Nichol G. Rea T.D. A trial of an impedance threshold device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest N Engl J Med 365 2011 798 806 10.1056/nejmoa1010821 21879897
12 Moore J.C. Pepe P.E. Scheppke K.A. Head and thorax elevation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation using circulatory adjuncts is associated with improved survival Resuscitation 179 2022 9 17 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.07.039 35933057
13 Bachista K.M. Moore J.C. Labarère J. Survival for nonshockable cardiac arrests treated with noninvasive circulatory adjuncts and head/thorax elevation Crit Care Med 52 2024 170 181 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006055 38240504
14 Segal N. Dissecting CPR Resuscitation 2023 110100 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.110100
15 Kleinman M.E. Perkins G.D. Bhanji F. ILCOR scientific knowledge gaps and clinical research priorities for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a consensus statement Circulation 2018 137 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000561
16 Ramage L. Mclachlan S. Williams K. Trainee P. Determining the top research priorities in UK prehospital critical care: a modified Delphi study Emerg Med J 2023 1 6 10.1136/emermed-2022-212622
17 Dainty K.N. Seaton M.B. Cowan K. Partnering with survivors & families to determine research priorities for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership Resusc Plus 7 2021 100148 10.1016/j.resplu.2021.100148
18 Main S, Sidebottom D. Effectiveness of combinations of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation, impedance threshold devices and head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review. PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews 2023. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023432302 (accessed March 2, 2024).
19 Page M.J. McKenzie J.E. Bossuyt P.M. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 372 2021 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71
20 Rethlefsen M.L. Kirtley S. Waffenschmidt S. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews Syst Rev 10 2021 39 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z 33499930
21 Ouzzani M. Hammady H. Fedorowicz Z. Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews Syst Rev 5 2016 1 10 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 26729230
22 Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 63 (Updated Feburary 2022) 2022. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed April 20, 2022).
23 Wolcke B.B. Mauer D.K. Schoefmann M.F. Comparison of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus the combination of active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation and an inspiratory impedance threshold device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest Circulation 2003 108 10.1161/01.CIR.0000095787.99180.B5 14662713
24 Plaisance P. Lurie K.G. Vicaut E. Evaluation of an impedance threshold device in patients receiving active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out of hospital cardiac arrest Resuscitation 2004 61 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.01.032 15246585
25 Aufderheide T.P. Frascone R.J. Wayne M.A. Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus active compression- decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation with augmentation of negative intrathoracic pressure for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomised trial The Lancet 377 2011 301 311 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62103-4
26 Frascone R.J. Wayne M.A. Swor R.A. Treatment of non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with active compression decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation plus an impedance threshold device Resuscitation 2013 84 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.05.002
27 Pepe P.E. Scheppke K.A. Antevy P.M. Confirming the clinical safety and feasibility of a bundled methodology to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation involving a head-up/torso-up chest compression technique Crit Care Med 2019 47 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003608
28 Kudenchuk P.J. Brown S.P. Daya M. Amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest N Engl J Med 2016 374 10.1056/nejmoa1514204
