Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Manual pressure augmentation did not improve survival to hospital discharge in shockable OHCAManual pressure during defibrillation does not improve cardiac arrest survival

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that manual pressure augmentation reduces transthoracic impedance but does not improve survival in shockable OHCA.

This cluster-randomized controlled trial enrolled 560 adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and a shockable rhythm at ambulance stations in Victoria, Australia. The study compared manual pressure augmentation (MPA) during shock delivery using a choreographed sequence against standard defibrillation.

The primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge showed no difference between groups: 39.8% (111/279) for the intervention group versus 39.9% (112/281) for the control group (AR -0.1%; 95% CI -8.2%, 8.0%; p = 0.99). However, transthoracic impedance was significantly reduced with MPA (AR -8.5 Ω ITT; 95% CI -12.9, -4.1; p < 0.001).

Safety data indicated that perceptible shocks were uncommon and comparable between groups (0.75 vs. 0.71 per 1000). No serious adverse events were reported. However, the trial was prematurely terminated due to external safety reviews and operational delays. A notable limitation was the low compliance with MPA at 23.6%.

Clinically, while MPA successfully reduced transthoracic impedance, it did not improve survival or other clinical outcomes in patients with initially shockable OHCA. The lack of correlation between improved impedance and improved survival suggests that current evidence does not support the routine adoption of MPA for improving primary outcomes.

How this fits prior evidence

How this fits prior evidence: This finding addresses a gap regarding technical interventions during cardiac arrest. While standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation is known to improve survival rates, this study shows that adding manual pressure augmentation (MPA) does not provide additional survival benefits despite reducing transthoracic impedance. It aligns with other findings where specific modifications or alternative access methods, such as intraosseous access, did not show a survival benefit over standard protocols.

When someone suffers a cardiac arrest outside of a hospital, every second counts. One method being tested is manual pressure augmentation (MPA). This involves using a specific choreographed sequence to apply pressure while delivering a shock to the heart. The goal was to see if this technique could help more people survive until they reached the hospital.

Researchers studied 560 adults who experienced cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm. While the study found that the manual pressure did lower transthoracic impedance (a measure of how much the chest resists the electrical current), it did not change the ultimate outcome. The survival rate to hospital discharge was almost identical between those who received the special technique and those who received standard defibrillation.

It is important to note that this trial was ended early due to external safety reviews and operational delays. While no serious injuries occurred, the study also noted that compliance with the manual pressure technique was low among the participants. Because the study stopped early, more data on long-term outcomes like quality of life were not fully available.

What this means for you:
Adding manual pressure during defibrillation does not improve survival rates for patients in cardiac arrest.

Common questions

Does the manual pressure technique help people survive cardiac arrest?

No, the study did not find a difference in survival. The survival rate to hospital discharge was 39.8% for those receiving manual pressure and 39.9% for those receiving standard defibrillation.

What are the safety risks of using manual pressure during a shock?

The study reported no serious adverse events. While perceptible shocks were uncommon, they occurred at similar rates in both groups (0.75 per 1000 vs 0.71 per 1000). No serious injuries occurred during the trial.

What did the study find regarding electrical resistance?

The manual pressure technique significantly reduced transthoracic impedance, which is a measure of how much the chest resists the electrical current. However, this reduction in resistance did not lead to better clinical outcomes for the patients.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 560
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
AIM: To determine whether defibrillation with manual pressure augmentation (MPA) reduces transthoracic impedance and improves cardioversion and survival from initially shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) compared with standard defibrillation. METHODS: Investigator-initiated, open-label, two-arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial across 216 ambulance stations in Victoria, Australia (April 1, 2022-January 31, 2023). Adults (≥18 years) with OHCA and a shockable rhythm receiving an attempted resuscitation were eligible. Intervention clusters applied MPA during shock delivery using a choreographed sequence and safety protocols; control clusters performed standard defibrillation. All shocks were biphasic at 200 J with anterior-lateral pad position. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat (ITT) population included 560 patients, (intervention, n = 279; control, n = 281). Survival to hospital discharge was 39.8% (111/279) in the intervention group vs 39.9% (112/281) in the control (absolute risk difference [AR] -0.1% [95% CI -8.2%, 8.0%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.00 [95% CI 0.71, 1.40]; p = 0.99). Twelve‑month survival, favourable neurologic outcome, and quality of life were similar between groups. Transthoracic impedance was significantly reduced with MPA (AR -8.5 O [95% CI -12.9, -4.1]; p < 0.001), and larger in per‑protocol analyses (AR -15.0 O [95% CI -22.8, -7.2]; p < 0.001). Compliance with MPA was low (23.6%). Perceptible shocks were uncommon and comparable across groups (0.75 vs 0.71 per 1000 shocks delivered); no serious injuries occurred. The trial was prematurely terminated due to external safety reviews and operational delays, without outcome unblinding at the time of termination. CONCLUSIONS: In this prematurely terminated RCT, MPA reduced transthoracic impedance but did not improve survival or other clinical outcomes in initially shockable OHCA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621000804886.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.