Table 2.
Summary of results for clinical studies.
| Author, year | Design/ Country |
Population/ Exposure |
Participant Characteristics | Intervention/Control | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee, 20238 | Prospective randomized controlled study/South Korea | OHCA | BLS and ALS hospital providers | Flow sensor real-time visual ventilation feedback device (Zoll Accuvent)/No feedback | Intervention = 63, control = 58 ROSC (55.5 % vs. 36.2 %, p = 0.04) 30 h survival (49.2 % vs. 46.5, p = 0.001). Survival to discharge (4.9 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.54) Survival with good outcome (11.1 vs. 10.3, p = 0.77) No data on ventilation measures reported |
| Drennan, 202418 | Prospective before-after study/Canada | OHCA | BLS and ALS EMS providers | Flow sensor real-time visual ventilation feedback device (Zoll Accuvent)/No feedback | Intervention = 221, Control = 191 ROSC (27 % vs. 29 %, p = NS) Ventilation rate (12 (IQR 10, 17) vs. 14 (11, 19), p = 0.035) Prop rate in target (53 %±38 vs. 29 %±9, p < 0.001) Insufflation volume measured (401 ml (353, 472) vs. 374 (274, 453), p = 0.058) Proportion volume in target (28 %±17 vs. 21 %±16, p < 0.001) Proportion volume & rate in target (19 %±17 vs. 7 %±10, p < 0.001) |
| Gerber, 202321 | Case series/USA | OHCA | EMS providers ED hospital providers |
Fow sensor real-time visual ventilation feedback device (Zoll Accuvent)/No control group Comparison between EMS providers vs. hospital staff after ED admission |
Total number of subjects = 3 Case 1: Rate 8/min vs. 17/min Mean insufflation volume measured 500 ml vs. 844 ml Case 2: Rate 6/min vs. 15/min Mean insufflation volume measured 382 ml vs. 610 ml Case 3: Rate 10/min vs. 14/min Mean insufflation volume delivered 478 ml vs. 638 ml |
| Lemoine, 202419 | Prospective cohort study, abstract only/France | OHCA | BLS EMS providers | Flow sensor real-time visual ventilation feedback device (EOlifeX®)/no control group | N = 104 Mean insufflation volume measured: 538 [IQR 412–645] ml Volume measured with passive exhalation: 291 [219–405] ml Leakage: volume 199 [119–287] ml, ratio 41 % [26–54 %] intervention-time showed a slight improvement in leakage in ventilation 2 compared to one in 30:2 ratio |
| McCarty, 201220 | Prospective cohort study, abstract only/USA | ED | ED hospital providers | CO2/Flow sensor real-time visual ventilation feedback device (NICO monitor, Philips)/no control group | N = 11 Ventilation rates 17/min (IQR 11,20) Insufflation volume measured 707 ml (IQR 564,827) |
ROSC: Return of Spontaneous Circulation, IQR: Interquartile Range, BV: Bag valve, OHCA: out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, IHCA: in-hospital cardiac arrest, EMS: Emergency medical services, ALS: Advanced Life Support, BLS: Basic life support, EMT: Emergency Medical Technician, ED: Emergency Department.