Comparison of Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality in Classic Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Events Using Video Review.

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.