| 1. |
- Esibov, Alexander, et al.
(författare)
-
Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 91, s. 116-121
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: We studied resuscitation process metrics in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest enrolled in a randomized trial comparing one protocol designed to best use a mechanical CPR device, with another based on the 2005 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for manual CPR. Methods: We analyzed clinical data, ECG signals, and transthoracic impedance signals for a subset of the patients in the LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest (LINC) trial, including 124 patients randomized to mechanical and 82 to manual CPR. Chest compression fraction (CCF) was defined as the fraction of time during cardiac arrest that chest compressions were administered. Results: Patients in the mechanical CPR group had a higher CCF than those in the manual CPR group [0.84 (0.78, 0.91) vs. 0.79 (0.70, 0.86), p < 0.001]. The median duration of their pauses for defibrillation was also shorter [0 s (0, 6.0) vs. 10.0 s (7.0, 14.3), p < 0.001]. Compressions were interrupted for a median of 36.0 s to apply the compression device. There was no difference between groups in duration of the longest pause in compressions [32.5 s vs. 26.0 s, p = 0.24], number of compressions received per minute [86.5 vs. 88.3, p = 0.47], defibrillation success rate [73.2% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.15], or refibrillation rate [74% vs. 77%, p = 0.79]. Conclusions: A protocol using mechanical chest compression devices reduced interruptions in chest compressions, and enabled defibrillation during ongoing compressions, without adversely affecting other resuscitation process metrics. Future emphasis on optimizing device deployment may be beneficial.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
