Positive end-expiratory pressure versus sham valve/zero end-expiratory pressure in cardiopulmonary resuscitation during manual ventilation to improve 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)

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.

Results Among the 3,200 patients who underwent randomization, 1,200 in the PEEP group and 1,200 in the ZEEP group were included in the principal stratum analysis. The mean utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale score at discharge was 0.1020 in the PEEP group and 0.1075 in the ZEEP group (mean difference corrected for covariates in a regression model of 0.0050; 95% CI -0.0159 - 0.0258). The observed rates in the PEEP and ZEEP groups of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation were X% vs. Y%; adjusted odds ratio, Z; 95% CI, A–B and in 30-day survival X% vs. Y%; adjusted odds ratio, Z; 95% CI, A–B. The incidence of clinically significant pneumothorax was similar between the PEEP and ZEEP groups, occurring in X% and Y% of patients, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, Z; 95% CI, A–B).

Conclusion Conclusion and discussion follow at Stage-2.

Stage-1 Registered Report 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.