| 1. |
- Elfwén, Ludvig, et al.
(författare)
-
Coronary angiography in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation on ECG-Short- and long-term survival.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 200, s. 90-95
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of early coronary angiography in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients without ST elevation on ECG is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between early coronary angiography and survival in these patients.METHODS: Nationwide observational study between 2008 and 2013. Included were patients admitted to hospital after witnessed OHCA, with shockable rhythm, age 18 to 80 years and unconscious. Patients with ST-elevation on ECG were excluded. Patients that underwent early CAG (within 24 hours) were compared with no early CAG (later during the hospital stay or not at all). Outcomes were survival at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years. Multivariate analysis included pre-hospital factors, comorbidity and ECG-findings.RESULTS: In total, 799 OHCA patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 275 (34%) received early CAG versus 524 (66%) with no early CAG. In the early CAG group, the proportion of patients with an occluded coronary artery was 27% and 70% had at least one significant coronary stenosis (defined as narrowing of coronary lumen diameter of ≥50%). The 30-day survival rate was 65% in early CAG group versus 52% with no early CAG (P < .001). The adjusted OR was 1.42 (95% CI 1.00-2.02). The one-year survival rate was 62% in the early CAG group versus 48% in the no early CAG group with the adjusted hazard ratio of 1.35 (95% CI 1.04-1.77).CONCLUSION: In this population of bystander-witnessed cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm and ECG without ST elevation, early coronary angiography may be associated with improved short and long term survival.
|
|
| 2. |
- Hardig, Bjarne Madsen, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome among VF/VT patients in the LINC (LUCAS IN cardiac arrest) trial-A randomised, controlled trial.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 115, s. 155-162
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: The LINC trial evaluated two ALS-CPR algorithms for OHCA patients, consisting of 3min' mechanical chest compression (LUCAS) cycles with defibrillation attempt through compressions vs. 2min' manual compressions with compression pause for defibrillation. The PARAMEDIC trial, using 2min' algorithm found worse outcome for patients with initial VF/VT in the LUCAS group and they received more adrenalin compared to the manual group. We wanted to evaluate if these algorithms had any outcome effect for patients still in VF/VT after the initial defibrillation and how adrenalin timing impacted it.METHOD: Both groups received manual chest compressions first. Based on non-electronic CPR process documentation, outcome, neurologic status and its relation to CPR duration prior to the first detected return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), time to defibrillation and adrenalin given were analysed in the subgroup of VF/VT patients.RESULTS: Seven hundred and fifty-seven patients had still VF/VT after initial chest compressions combined with a defibrillation attempt (374 received mechanical CPR) or not (383 received manual CPR). No differences were found for ROSC (mechanical CPR 58.3% vs. manual CPR 58.6%, p=0.94), or 6-month survival with good neurologic outcome (mechanical CPR 25.1% vs. manual CPR 23.0%, p=0.50). A significant difference was found regarding the time from start of manual chest compression to the first defibrillation (mechanical CPR: 4 (2-5) min vs manual CPR 3 (2-4) min, P<0.001). The time from the start of manual chest compressions to ROSC was longer in the mechanical CPR group.CONCLUSIONS: No difference in short- or long-term outcomes was found between the 2 algorithms for patients still in VF/VT after the initial defibrillation. The time to the 1st defibrillation and the interval between defibrillations were longer in the mechanical CPR group without impacting the overall outcome. The number of defibrillations required to achieve ROSC or adrenalin doses did not differ between the groups.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Riva, Gabriel, et al.
(författare)
-
Compression-Only or Standard Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Trained Laypersons in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Nationwide Randomized Trial in Sweden
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. - 1941-7713 .- 1941-7705. ; 17:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The ongoing TANGO2 (Telephone Assisted CPR. AN evaluation of efficacy amonGst cOmpression only and standard CPR) trial is designed to evaluate whether compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by trained laypersons is noninferior to standard CPR in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This pilot study assesses feasibility, safety, and intermediate clinical outcomes as part of the larger TANGO2 survival trial. METHODS: Emergency medical dispatch calls of suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were screened for inclusion at 18 dispatch centers in Sweden between January 1, 2017, and March 12, 2020. Inclusion criteria were witnessed event, bystander on the scene with previous CPR training, age above 18 years of age, and no signs of trauma, pregnancy, or intoxication. Cases were randomized 1:1 at the dispatch center to either instructions to perform compression-only CPR (intervention) or instructions to perform standard CPR (control). Feasibility included evaluation of inclusion, randomization, and adherence to protocol. Safety measures were time to emergency medical service dispatch CPR instructions, and to start of CPR, intermediate clinical outcome was defined as 1-day survival. RESULTS: Of 11 838 calls of suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest screened for inclusion, 2168 were randomized and 1250 (57.7%) were out-of-hospital cardiac arrests treated by the emergency medical service. Of these, 640 were assigned to intervention and 610 to control. Crossover from intervention to control occurred in 16.3% and from control to intervention in 18.5%. The median time from emergency call to ambulance dispatch was 1 minute and 36 s (interquartile range, 1.1-2.2) in the intervention group and 1 minute and 30 s (interquartile range, 1.1-2.2) in the control group. Survival to 1 day was 28.6% versus 28.4% (P=0.984) for intervention and control, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this national randomized pilot trial, compression-only CPR versus standard CPR by trained laypersons was feasible. No differences in safety measures or short-term survival were found between the 2 strategies. Efforts to reduce crossover are important and may strengthen the ongoing main trial that will assess differences in long-term survival. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02401633.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(författare)
-
Mechanical chest compressions and simultanous defibrillationvs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitationin out-of hospital cardiac arrest:the LINC randomized trial
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 311:1, s. 53-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome. RESULTS: Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00609778.
|
|
| 8. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(författare)
-
Per-Protocol and Pre-Defined population analysis of the LINC study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 96, s. 92-99
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To perform two predefined sub-group analyses within the LINC study and evaluate if the results were supportive of the previous reported intention to treat (ITT) analysis.METHODS: Predefined subgroup analyses from the previously published LINC study were performed. The Per-Protocol population (PPP) included the randomized patients included in the ITT-population but excluding those with violated inclusion or exclusion criteria and those that did not get the actual treatment to which the patient was randomized. In the Pre-Defined population (PDP) analyses patients were also excluded if the dispatch time to ambulance arrival at the address exceeded 12min, there was a non-witnessed cardiac arrest, or if it was not possible to determine whether the arrest was witnessed or not, and those cases where LUCAS was not brought to the scene at the first instance.RESULTS: After exclusion from the 2589 patients within the ITT-population, the Per-Protocol analysis was performed in 2370 patients and the Pre-Defined analysis within 1133 patients. There was no significant difference in 4-h survival of patients between the mechanical-CPR group and the manual-CPR group in the Per-Protocol population; 279 of 1172 patients (23.8%) versus 281 of 1198 patients (23.5%) (risk difference -0.35%, 95% C.I. -3.1 to 3.8, p=0.85) or in the Pre-Defined population; 176 of 567 patients (31.0%) versus 192 of 566 patients (33.9%) (risk difference -2.88%, 95% C.I. -8.3 to 2.6, p=0.31). There was no difference in any of the second outcome variables analyzed in the Pre-Protocol or Pre-Defined populations.CONCLUSIONS: The results from these predefined sub-group analyses of the LINC study population did not show any difference in 4h survival or in secondary outcome variables between patients treated with mechanical-CPR or manual-CPR. This is consistent with the previously published ITT analysis.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(författare)
-
The Study Protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest) Study : a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1757-7241. ; 21:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation. Methods/design This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1 webcite). Results Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR. Conclusion This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.
|
|
