Alexander Esibov1, Isabelle Banville2, Fred W Chapman2, René Boomars3, Martyn Box4, Sten Rubertsson5. 1. Physio-Control, Inc., 11811 Willows Road NE, Redmond, WA 98052, USA. Electronic address: alex.esibov@physio-control.com. 2. Physio-Control, Inc., 11811 Willows Road NE, Redmond, WA 98052, USA. 3. Regional Ambulance Service Utrecht, Jan van Eyck Lane 6, 3723 BC Bilthoven, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Abbey Ct, Exeter EX2 7HY, England, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Surgical Sciences/Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Uppsala University, Akademiska sjukhuset entrence 70, 1 tr, Uppsala, Sweden.
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 [32.5s 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.
RCT Entities:
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 [32.5s 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.
Authors: Song Yi Park; Daesung Lim; Seong Chun Kim; Ji Ho Ryu; Yong Hwan Kim; Byungho Choi; Sun Hyu Kim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Keith Couper; Rochelle M Velho; Tom Quinn; Anne Devrell; Ranjit Lall; Barry Orriss; Joyce Yeung; Gavin D Perkins Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 2.692