Literature DB >> 33038438

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: A multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT).

Keith Couper1, Tom Quinn2, Katie Booth3, Ranjit Lall3, Anne Devrell4, Barry Orriss4, Scott Regan3, Joyce Yeung5, Gavin D Perkins5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices deliver high-quality chest compressions. Early data suggests that mechanical devices may be superior to manual chest compressions in adults following an in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. To determine the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness trial in this population, we undertook a feasibility randomised controlled trial.
METHODS: We undertook a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT). Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients that were in a non-shockable rhythm were randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive mechanical CPR (Jolfe AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or ongoing manual CPR. Recruitment was led by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome was the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Patients were enrolled under a model of deferred consent. We report data using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Over a two-year period, we recruited 127 patients across five UK hospitals. We recruited 55.2% (95% CI 48.5%-61.8%) of eligible study participants in site operational recruitment hours. Most participants were male (n = 76, 59.8%) with a mean age of 72 (95% CI: 69.9-74.9) years. Median arrest duration was 18 (IQR 13-29) minutes. In patients randomised to mech-CPR, median time from CPR start to device deployment was 11 (IQR 7-15) minutes. ROSC was achieved in 27.6% (n = 35) participants and 4.7% (n = 6) were alive at 30-days.
CONCLUSION: COMPRESS-RCT identified important factors that preclude progression to an effectiveness trial of mechanical CPR in the hospital setting in the UK. Findings will inform the design of future in-hospital intra-arrest intervention trials. ISRCTN38139840, date of registration 9th January 2017.
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Advanced life support; Cardiac arrest; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Feasibility trial; Mechanical chest compressions; Randomised controlled trial

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33038438      PMCID: PMC7790762          DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  2 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Authors:  Mack Sheraton; John Columbus; Salim Surani; Ravinder Chopra; Rahul Kashyap
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2021-07-19

2.  Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients.

Authors:  Alp Şener; Gül Pamukçu Günaydın; Fatih Tanrıverdi; Ayhan Özhasenekler; Şervan Gökhan; Gülhan Kurtoğlu Çelik; Özcan Sağlam; Nihal Ertürk
Journal:  Turk J Emerg Med       Date:  2022-04-11
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.