CPR compression strategy 30:2 is difficult to adhere to, but has better survival than continuous chest compressions when done correctly

Background: A large, randomized trial showed no significant difference in survival to discharge between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) strategies of 30 compressions with pause for 2 ventilations per cycle (30:2) and continuous chest compression with asynchronous ventilations (CCC). Data from the same trial suggested that adherence to the intended CPR strategy was associated with significantly greater survival. We sought to determine the adherence rate with intended strategy and then explore the association of adherence with survival to discharge in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). Methods: This secondary analysis of data from the ROC included three interventional trials and a prospective registry. We modified an automated software algorithm that classified care as 30:2 or CCC before intubation based on compression segment length (defined as the elapsed time from start of compressions to subsequent pause of ≥2 s), number of pauses per minute ≥2 s in length and chest compression fraction. Intended CPR strategy for individual agencies was based on study randomization (during trial phase) or local standard of care (during registry phase). We defined CPR delivered as adherent when its classification matched the intended strategy. We characterized adherence with intended strategy across trial and registry periods. We examined its association with survival to hospital discharge using multivariate logistic regression after adjustment for Utstein and other potential confounders. Effect modification with intended strategy was assessed through a multiplicative interaction term. Results: Included were 26,810 adults with out of hospital cardiac arrest, of which 10,942 had an intended strategy of 30:2 and 15,868 an intended strategy of CCC. The automated algorithm classified 12,276 cases as CCC, 7037 as 30:2 and left 7497 as unclassified. Adherence to intended strategy was 54.4%; this differed by intended strategy (58.6% for CCC vs 48.3% for 30:2). Overall adherence was less during the registry phase as compared to during the trial phase(s). The association between adherence and survival was modified by treatment arm (CCC OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.64−0.81 vs 30:2 OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90–1.22; interaction p-value<0.01) after adjustment for known confounders. Conclusion: For intended strategy CCC, survival was significantly lower, OR (95%CI) = 0.72 (0.64, 0.81), when adhered to while for intended strategy 30:2, survival was higher, OR (95%CI) = 1.05 (0.90, 1.22), when adhered to. Intended strategy of 30:2 had lower adherence rates than CCC possibly a result of being a more difficult strategy to administer.