INTRODUCTION: Uncertainty persists on the clinical impact of impedance threshold devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We conducted an updated systematic review on impedance threshold devices. METHODS: Several databases were searched for studies testing the effectiveness of impedance threshold devices in patients with cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. RESULTS: Seven trials (11,254 patients) were included. In 4 studies (2,284 patients) impedance threshold devices were used with active compression-decompression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and in the others alone. Overall, impedance threshold devices did not impact on the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.17 [0.96-1.43], p=0.114), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.56 [0.97-2.50], p=0.065), or long-term survival (odds ratio=1.22 [0.94-1.58], p=0.127). These analyses were fraught with heterogeneity (respectively, p=0.055, p=0.236, and p=0.011) and inconsistency (respectively, I-squared=51% , I-squared=27% , and I-squared=67%). Exploratory analysis showed that combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.19 [1.00-1.40], p=0.045), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.60 [1.14-2.25], p=0.006), and long-term survival (odds ratio=1.52 [1.11-2.08], p=0.009). The favorable impact of the interaction between impedance threshold devices and active compression-decompression was also confirmed at meta-regression analysis (respectively, b=0.195 [0.004-0.387], p=0.045, b=0.500 [0.079-0.841], p=0.018, b=0.413 [0.063-0.764], p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on impedance threshold devices is apparently inconclusive, with a neutral impact on clinically relevant outcomes. However, exploratory analysis focusing on the combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression suggests that this combo treatment may be useful to improve patient prognosis.

INTRODUCTION: Uncertainty persists on the clinical impact of impedance threshold devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We conducted an updated systematic review on impedance threshold devices. METHODS: Several databases were searched for studies testing the effectiveness of impedance threshold devices in patients with cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. RESULTS: Seven trials (11,254 patients) were included. In 4 studies (2,284 patients) impedance threshold devices were used with active compression-decompression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and in the others alone. Overall, impedance threshold devices did not impact on the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.17 [0.96-1.43], p=0.114), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.56 [0.97-2.50], p=0.065), or long-term survival (odds ratio=1.22 [0.94-1.58], p=0.127). These analyses were fraught with heterogeneity (respectively, p=0.055, p=0.236, and p=0.011) and inconsistency (respectively, I-squared=51% , I-squared=27% , and I-squared=67%). Exploratory analysis showed that combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.19 [1.00-1.40], p=0.045), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.60 [1.14-2.25], p=0.006), and long-term survival (odds ratio=1.52 [1.11-2.08], p=0.009). The favorable impact of the interaction between impedance threshold devices and active compression-decompression was also confirmed at meta-regression analysis (respectively, b=0.195 [0.004-0.387], p=0.045, b=0.500 [0.079-0.841], p=0.018, b=0.413 [0.063-0.764], p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on impedance threshold devices is apparently inconclusive, with a neutral impact on clinically relevant outcomes. However, exploratory analysis focusing on the combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression suggests that this combo treatment may be useful to improve patient prognosis.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on impedance threshold devices in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation / BIONDI ZOCCAI, Giuseppe; Abbate, A; Landoni, G; Zangrillo, A; Vincent, Jl; D'Ascenzo, F; Frati, Giacomo. - 6:2(2014), pp. 105-113.

### An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on impedance threshold devices in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

#####
*BIONDI ZOCCAI, GIUSEPPE;FRATI, GIACOMO*

##### 2014

#### Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Uncertainty persists on the clinical impact of impedance threshold devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We conducted an updated systematic review on impedance threshold devices. METHODS: Several databases were searched for studies testing the effectiveness of impedance threshold devices in patients with cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. RESULTS: Seven trials (11,254 patients) were included. In 4 studies (2,284 patients) impedance threshold devices were used with active compression-decompression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and in the others alone. Overall, impedance threshold devices did not impact on the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.17 [0.96-1.43], p=0.114), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.56 [0.97-2.50], p=0.065), or long-term survival (odds ratio=1.22 [0.94-1.58], p=0.127). These analyses were fraught with heterogeneity (respectively, p=0.055, p=0.236, and p=0.011) and inconsistency (respectively, I-squared=51% , I-squared=27% , and I-squared=67%). Exploratory analysis showed that combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression significantly increased the likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio=1.19 [1.00-1.40], p=0.045), favorable neurologic outcome (odds ratio=1.60 [1.14-2.25], p=0.006), and long-term survival (odds ratio=1.52 [1.11-2.08], p=0.009). The favorable impact of the interaction between impedance threshold devices and active compression-decompression was also confirmed at meta-regression analysis (respectively, b=0.195 [0.004-0.387], p=0.045, b=0.500 [0.079-0.841], p=0.018, b=0.413 [0.063-0.764], p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on impedance threshold devices is apparently inconclusive, with a neutral impact on clinically relevant outcomes. However, exploratory analysis focusing on the combined use of impedance threshold devices with active compression-decompression suggests that this combo treatment may be useful to improve patient prognosis.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.