Article

Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - A pilot study

University of Gothenburg, Goeteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
Resuscitation (Impact Factor: 4.17). 10/2006; 71(1):47-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.02.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the outcome among patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after the introduction of mechanical chest compression (MCC) compared with standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (SCPR) in two emergency medical service (EMS) systems.
The inclusion criterion was witnessed OHCA. The exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, the following judged etiologies behind OHCA: trauma, pregnancy, hypothermia, intoxication, hanging and drowning or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to the arrival of the advanced life support (ALS) unit. Two MCC devices were allocated during six-month periods between four ALS units for a period of two years (cluster randomisation).
In all, 328 patients fulfilled the criteria for participation and 159 were allocated to the MCC tier (the device was used in 66% of cases) and 169 to the SCPR tier. In the MCC tier, 51% had ROSC (primary end-point) versus 51% in the SCPR tier. The corresponding values for hospital admission alive (secondary end-point) were 38% and 37% (NS). In the subset of patients in whom the device was used, the percentage who had ROSC was 49% versus 50% in a control group matched for age, initial rhythm, aetiology, bystander-/crew-witnessed status and delay to CPR. The percentage of patients discharged alive from hospital after OHCA was 8% versus 10% (NS) for all patients and 2% versus 4%, respectively (NS) for the patients in the subset (where the device was used and the matched control population).
In this pilot study, the results did not support the hypothesis that the introduction of mechanical chest compression in OHCA improves outcome. However, there is room for further improvement in the use of the device. The hypothesis that this will improve outcome needs to be tested in further prospective trials.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Åsa Axelsson
  • Source
    • "After review by abstract, potential relevant were identified and reviewed by full article. After exclusion, 12 studies were found meeting the inclusion criteria, included 9 out-of-hospital studies and 3 in-hospital studies232425262728293031323334. The process was detailed in a PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literatures comparing the use of mechanical chest compression device and manual chest compression during cardiac arrest (CA) with respect to short-term survival outcomes and neurological function. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles by handsearch. The inclusion criteria for this review must be human prospective controlled studies of adult CA. Random effects models were used to assess the risk ratios and 95 % confidence intervals for return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to admission and discharge, and neurological function. Twelve trials (9 out-of-hospital and 3 in-hospital studies), involving 11,162 participants, were included in the review. The results of this meta-analysis indicated no differences were found in Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scores, survival to hospital admission and survival to discharge between manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and mechanical CPR for out-of-hospital CA (OHCA) patients. The data on achieving ROSC in both of in-hospital and out-of-hospital setting suggested poor application of the mechanical device (RR 0.71, [95 % CI, 0.53, 0.97] and 0.87 [95 % CI, 0.81, 0.94], respectively). OHCA patients receiving manual resuscitation were more likely to attain ROSC compared with load-distributing bands chest compression device (RR 0.88, [95 % CI, 0.80, 0.96]). The in-hospital studies suggested increased relative harm with mechanical compressions for ratio of survival to hospital discharge (RR 0.54, [95 % CI 0.29, 0.98]). However, the results were not statistically significant between different kinds of mechanical chest compression devices and manual resuscitation in survival to admission, discharge and CPC scores for OHCA patients and survival to discharge for in-hospital CA patients. The ability to achieve ROSC with mechanical devise was inferior to manual chest compression during resuscitation. The use of mechanical chest compression cannot be recommended as a replacement for manual CPR, but rather a supplemental treatment in an overall strategy for treating CA patients.
    Preview · Article · Dec 2016 · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
  • Source
    • "Considerations for the sample size calculations are based upon data from the Uppsala-Gävle pilot study, [15] together with data from the National Registry of Cardiac Arrest in Sweden [19]. It was assumed that in the conventional manual treatment group, the proportion of four-hour survival will be 25% and in the LUCAS-CPR treatment group the proportion of four hour survival will be at least 31%. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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). 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.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013 · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
  • Source
    • "A similar study conducted by Axelsson [24] showed that there was no significant difference between both types of CPR with regards to ROSC, survival to hospital discharge or to hospital discharge. No difference between CPC score was also observed. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature to address the question: "In pre-hospital adult cardiac arrest (asystole, pulseless electrical activity, pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia and Ventricular Fibrillation), does the use of mechanical Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) devices compared to manual CPR during Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and ambulance transport, improve outcomes (e.g. Quality of CPR, Return Of Spontaneous Circulation, Survival)". Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library (including Cochrane database for systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, and AHA EndNote Master Library were systematically searched. Further references were gathered from cross-references from articles and reviews as well as forward search using SCOPUS and Google scholar. The inclusion criteria for this review included manikin and human studies of adult cardiac arrest and anti-arrhythmic agents, peer-review. Excluded were review articles, case series and case reports. Out of 88 articles identified, only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for further review. Of these 10 articles, 1 was Level of Evidence (LOE) 1, 4 LOE 2, 3 LOE 3, 0 LOE 4, 2 LOE 5. 4 studies evaluated the quality of CPR in terms of compression adequacy while the remaining six studies evaluated on clinical outcomes in terms of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge and Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC). 7 studies were supporting the clinical question, 1 neutral and 2 opposing. In this review, we found insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of mechanical CPR devices in settings of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and during ambulance transport. While there is some low quality evidence suggesting that mechanical CPR can improve consistency and reduce interruptions in chest compressions, there is no evidence that mechanical CPR devices improve survival, to the contrary they may worsen neurological outcome.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2012 · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Show more