Clinical Studies

2011

Brody D, Di Maio R, Crawford P, Navarro C, and Anderson J. The impedance cardiogram amplitude as an indicator of cardiopulmonary resuscitation efficacy in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. Journal of the American College of Cardiology; 5 April 2011; 57(14), Supplement 1:E1134.

Navarro C, Cromie N, Escalona O, Turner C, Thompson AI, Anderson J. (Hangzhou, China). Detection of pulseless electrical activity using ECG and ICG recorded by a public access defibrillator. Accepted for the IEEE Computing in Cardiology Conference 2011.

Navarro C, Cromie N, Di Maio R, Anderson J. Use of the impedance cardiogram in public access defibrillators as an indicator of cardiopulmonary resuscitation effectiveness. Accepted for the IEEE Computing in Cardiology Conference 2011 (Hangzhou, China).

Di Maio R, Howe A, Crawford P, Brody D, Navarro C, McEneaney D, Clutton E, Anderson J. Measurement of depth, thrust and thoracic impedance during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Is the thoracic impedance a potential indicator of effective external cardiac massage in a porcine model of cardiac arrest? Accepted for publication in Circulation 2011.

Howe A, Di Maio R, Crawford P, Brody D, Navarro C, McEneaney D, Clutton E, Anderson J. The impedance cardiogram (ICG) as an indicator of chest compression efficacy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a porcine model: Correlation with physiological parameters and comparison with compression depth and thrust. Accepted for publication in Circulation 2011.

Di Maio, R. Synchronizing shocks to the peak of the P wave during ventricular fibrillation: Does it improve shock success? ISCE 2011.

2010

Di Maio R, Anderson J. The impedance cardiogram is an indicator of CPR effectiveness for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims. JACC, 2010;55(10A), Supplement 1: A217/E2062.

Di Maio R, Navarro C; Cromie NA, Anderson JMCC, Adgey AAJ. Impedance cardiogram to measure CPR efficacy and rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims. 2010; Breakout Presentation; TBA (Accepted European Society of Cardiology).

Cromie NA; Allen JD, Navarro C, Turner C, Anderson JM; Adgey AAJ. Assessment of the impedance cardiogram recorded by an automated external defibrillator during clinical cardiac arrest. Critical Care Medicine, 2010;38(2):510-517.

Di Maio R, Crawford P, Brody D, Farley L, Anderson J, Adgey J. Observations of end-tidal CO2 and invasive cardiac output measurements during mechanical CPR in a porcine model of cardiac arrest. Circulation 2010;122:A80.

Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Hands-Only (Compression-Only) Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Call to Action for Bystander Response to Adults Who Experience Out-of-Hospital Sudden Cardiac Arrest: A Science Advisory for the Public from the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiology

Bystanders who witness the sudden collapse of an adult should activate the emergency medical services (EMS) system and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the middle of the victim’s chest, with minimal interruptions. This recommendation is based on evaluation of recent scientific studies and consensus of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Committee.

Click here to view article.

AJC Article Summary

• The HeartSine^® samaritan^® SCOPE^™ escalating Biphasic waveform (100 J – 150 J – 200 J) had significantly better performance in removing Ventricular Fibrillation than the Heartstream non-escalating biphasic waveform (150 J – 150 J – 150 J).
• The data shows that the first shock efficacy for the HeartSine 100 Joule (J) vs. the Heartstream 150 J was statistically equivalent.
• The second shock data shows the HeartSine^® 150 J vs. the Heartstream 150 J was statistically equivalent (if not slightly better — samaritan^® SCOPE = 82% vs. Phillips = 78% [p=NS]).
• “However, by the third shock, the samaritan^® device (using a 100 – 150 – 200 J protocol) showed significantly better performance for discontinuation of VF” (samaritan^® SCOPE = 92% vs. Phillips = 83% [p=0.029 - meaning these results were statistically significant].
• The data presented in this paper is from a “real world” resuscitation environment and not a closely-controlled Cath Lab clinical study (where the patient is put into VF for 15 seconds and shocked out of VF, which is not indicative of a “real world resuscitation” or real world downtimes). The paper represents data from 78 consecutive patients in cardiac arrest, which occurred in an out-of-hospital physician-led ambulance or in-hospital Cardiac Arrest Team events, where downtimes exceed several minutes (hence a “real world” environment).
• The samaritan^® SCOPE escalating Biphasic waveform was able to produce significantly better performance even though we had to treat twice as many patients who had a downtime of 9 minutes. The mean response time for in-hospital patients was 1.4 minutes vs. 9 minutes for out-of-hospital patients. When analyzing the data for the Phillips Biphasic unit, they only treated 33% of the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients (leaving 67% of the cardiac arrest patients the Phillips device; treated were the “easy to treat” in-hospital patients who had a response time of 1.4 minutes.) Conversely, the HeartSine^® samaritan^® SCOPE biphasic units treated 68% of the cardiac arrest patients from the out-of-hospital group. View article.

HeartSine’s CPR Advisor Technology

A collection of abstracts from scientific papers supporting HeartSine’s CPR Advisor Technology to improve outcomes from out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest.

For More Information

To receive a comprehensive list of clinical studies related to HeartSine’s lifesaving products and technology, please email info@heartsine.com.