Need Help?

Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Trial of Continuous Compressions Versus Standard CPR in Patients With out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (ROC CCC-BioLINCC)

Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.

Objectives: To compare the rate of survival to hospital discharge after continuous chest compressions versus standard American Heart Association recommended cardiopulmonary resuscitation with interrupted chest compressions in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Background: Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) consists of manual chest compressions to maintain blood flow and positive-pressure ventilation to maintain oxygenation until spontaneous circulation is restored. Chest compressions during standard CPR are interrupted frequently by ventilations. These interruptions reduce blood flow and potentially reduce the effectiveness of CPR. In animals with cardiac arrest, the interruption of chest compressions has been associated with decreased survival. Observational studies involving humans with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause have suggested that continuous compressions are associated with higher rates of survival than interrupted compressions.

Participants: Of 35,904 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were screened, 26,148 were eligible for participation in the trial and were enrolled in the trial during either the run-in phase or the active-enrollment phase. The active-enrollment phase included 23,711 patients, of whom 12,653 were assigned to the intervention group and 11,058 to the control group.

Design: There were 114 participating EMS agencies across the eight participating Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) sites, which were grouped into 47 clusters. Clusters of agencies were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to perform continuous chest compressions or interrupted chest compressions during all the out-of-hospital cardiac arrests to which they responded. Each cluster was required to begin enrolling patients in a run-in phase to demonstrate adherence to the protocol before entering the active-enrollment phase of the trial. Twice per year, each cluster was crossed over to the other resuscitation strategy.

Patients assigned to the group that received continuous chest compressions (intervention group) were to receive continuous chest compressions at a rate of 100 compressions per minute, with asynchronous positive-pressure ventilations delivered at a rate of 10 ventilations per minute. Patients assigned to the group that received interrupted chest compressions (control group) were to receive compressions that were interrupted for ventilations at a ratio of 30 compressions to two ventilations; ventilations were to be given with positive pressure during a pause in compressions of less than 5 seconds in duration.

The primary outcome was the rate of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included neurologic function at discharge, which was measured with the use of the modified Rankin scale, and adverse events.

Conclusions: During the active-enrollment phase, 1129 of 12,613 patients in the continuous chest compression group and 1072 of 11,035 patients in the interrupted chest compressions group survived to hospital discharge.

In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, continuous chest compressions during CPR performed by EMS providers did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic function than did interrupted chest compressions.