Back

Positive end-expiratory pressure versus sham valve/zero end-expiratory pressure in cardiopulmonary resuscitation during manual ventilation toimprove neurological outcomes in adult patients suffering an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, multicenter, parallel-group, triple-blind randomized controlled superiority clinical trial in the ARREST registry (REVIVE-PEEP protocol Stage-1 Registered Report)

van Eijk, J.; Schober, P.; van Schuppen, H.; ter Schure, J.

2026-08-31 emergency medicine
10.64898/2026.08.27.26361533 medRxiv
Show abstract

We present our Stage-1 Registered Report as a full clinical trial article with all methods in past tense and including mock results, table and figures for the primary analysis. To remind the reader that this Stage-1 article is written before data collection, we highlight in color that these mock results are only for illustrative purposes and will be replaced by the actual results in the Stage-2 Registered Report. Background In patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, optimization of oxygen delivery during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a critical. Although both positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) are employed during CPR, their respective impacts on clinically relevant outcomes is yet to be clearly established. Methods This investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, multicenter, triple-blind randomized controlled superiority trial evaluates whether applying 8 cm H2O PEEP during cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves outcomes compared with ZEEP in adults with non-traumatic, non-drowning out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Pre-randomized CPR kits (1:1 PEEP vs. sham) were used by ambulance sites during manual ventilation throughout the resuscitation process. The primary analysis was conducted in the principal stratum of patients who received either a supraglottic airway or endotracheal tube. The primary outcome was neurological status at hospital discharge measured by a utility-weighted score on the modified Rankin Scale. Secondary outcomes included prehospital return of spontaneous circulation, 30-day survival, and 6-month quality of life. The primary safety outcome was clinically significant pneumothorax.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.