Dataset Information

Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Mechanical chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with AutoPulse or LUCAS devices has not improved survival from cardiac arrest. Cohort studies suggest risk of excess damage. We studied safety of mechanical CC and determined possible excess damage compared with manual CC.

Methods and results

This is a randomized non-inferiority safety study. Randomization to AutoPulse, LUCAS, or manual CC with corrective depth and rate feedback was performed. We included patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest arriving with manual CPR at the emergency department. The primary outcome was serious or life-threatening visceral resuscitation-related damage, assessed blind by post-mortem computed tomography scan and/or autopsy or by clinical course until discharge. Non-inferiority hypothesis: mechanical CC compared with manual control does not increase the primary outcome by a risk difference of > 10% [upper 95% confidence interval (CI)]. We included 115 patients treated with AutoPulse, 122 with LUCAS, and 137 patients received manual CC. Safety outcome analysis was possible in 337 of 374 (90.1%) included patients. The primary outcome was observed in 12 of 103 AutoPulse patients (11.6%), 8 of 108 LUCAS patients (7.4%), and 8 of 126 controls (6.4%). Rate difference AutoPulse-control: +5.3% (95% CI - 2.2% to 12.8%), P = 0.15. Rate difference LUCAS-control +1.0% (95% CI - 5.5% to 7.6%), P = 0.75.

Conclusion

LUCAS does not cause significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC. For AutoPulse, significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC cannot be excluded.

SUBMITTER: Koster RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5837501 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCardiac arrest (CA) is a serious threat to human health. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is an effective treatment for CA. Early and high-quality CPR is closely related to the survival rate of patients with CA. But manual chest compression has a lot of defects. To solve the defects and improve the quality of CPR, mechanical CPR device was invented. However, it has still controversy whether manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression is better. This systematic review was aimed to investigate the difference in clinical outcomes between manual chest compression and Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) assisted CPR in patients with out-hospital CA.MethodsOriginal research studies, conducted on adult out-of-hospital CA, were included. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang database were searched from the setting to February 21, 2019. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was selected as effect scale index for evaluation of the difference in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, and survival to 30 days. Random effects model was used in this study to estimate overall mean effects.ResultsA total of 6 articles, including 4 randomized controlled trials and 2 nonrandomized controlled trials, were selected. And 8501 subjects were involved to analyze the clinical outcomes of LUCAS and manual chest compression for patients with out-hospital CA. Comparisons of ROSC (33.3% vs 33.0%, P?=?.98; OR?=?1; 95% CI: [0.89,1.13]), survival to hospital admission (22.7% vs 24.3%, P?=?.32; OR?=?0.86; 95% CI: [0.65,1.15]), survival to hospital discharge (8.6% vs 10.7%, P?=?.50; OR?=?0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]), and survival to 30 days (7.5% vs 8.5%, P?=?.50; OR?=?0.92; 95% CI: [0.73,1.17]) were made. No significant difference was found.ConclusionThe synthesis of available evidence does not support that mechanical chest compression with LUCAS device improves clinical outcome in out-of-hospital CA patients compared with manual chest compression. Large scale studies with improved designs are still needed in the future.