Tweet
JAMA. Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The LINC Randomized Trial
[Source: Journal of American Medical Association, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]
Original Investigation | November 17, 2013
Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The LINC Randomized Trial
FREE / ONLINE FIRST
Sten Rubertsson, MD, PhD<SUP>1</SUP>; Erik Lindgren, MD<SUP>1</SUP>; David Smekal, MD, PhD<SUP>1</SUP>; Ollie ?stlund, PhD<SUP>2</SUP>; Johan Silfverstolpe, MD<SUP>3</SUP>; Robert A. Lichtveld, MD, PhD<SUP>4</SUP>; Rene Boomars, MPA<SUP>4</SUP>; Bj?rn Ahlstedt, MD<SUP>5</SUP>; Gunnar Skoog, MD<SUP>6</SUP>; Robert Kastberg, MD<SUP>6</SUP>; David Halliwell, RN<SUP>7</SUP>; Martyn Box, RN<SUP>7</SUP>; Johan Herlitz, MD, PhD<SUP>8</SUP>; Rolf Karlsten, MD, PhD<SUP>1</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
Author Affiliations: <SUP>1</SUP>Department of Surgical Sciences/Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; <SUP>2</SUP>Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; <SUP>3</SUP>Region Sk?ne Prehospital Center and Sk?ne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; <SUP>4</SUP>Regional Ambulance Service Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; <SUP>5</SUP>V?ster?s Central Hospital, V?ster?s, Sweden; <SUP>6</SUP>G?vle Hospital, G?vle, Sweden; <SUP>7</SUP>South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Abbey Court, Exeter, England; <SUP>8</SUP>Center of Prehospital Research in Western Sweden and the University College of Bor?s and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, G?teborg, Sweden
JAMA. Published online November 17, 2013. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282538 / Published online
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
-
-------
Original Investigation | November 17, 2013
Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The LINC Randomized Trial
FREE / ONLINE FIRST
Sten Rubertsson, MD, PhD<SUP>1</SUP>; Erik Lindgren, MD<SUP>1</SUP>; David Smekal, MD, PhD<SUP>1</SUP>; Ollie ?stlund, PhD<SUP>2</SUP>; Johan Silfverstolpe, MD<SUP>3</SUP>; Robert A. Lichtveld, MD, PhD<SUP>4</SUP>; Rene Boomars, MPA<SUP>4</SUP>; Bj?rn Ahlstedt, MD<SUP>5</SUP>; Gunnar Skoog, MD<SUP>6</SUP>; Robert Kastberg, MD<SUP>6</SUP>; David Halliwell, RN<SUP>7</SUP>; Martyn Box, RN<SUP>7</SUP>; Johan Herlitz, MD, PhD<SUP>8</SUP>; Rolf Karlsten, MD, PhD<SUP>1</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
Author Affiliations: <SUP>1</SUP>Department of Surgical Sciences/Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; <SUP>2</SUP>Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; <SUP>3</SUP>Region Sk?ne Prehospital Center and Sk?ne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; <SUP>4</SUP>Regional Ambulance Service Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands; <SUP>5</SUP>V?ster?s Central Hospital, V?ster?s, Sweden; <SUP>6</SUP>G?vle Hospital, G?vle, Sweden; <SUP>7</SUP>South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust Abbey Court, Exeter, England; <SUP>8</SUP>Center of Prehospital Research in Western Sweden and the University College of Bor?s and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, G?teborg, Sweden
JAMA. Published online November 17, 2013. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282538 / Published online
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
-
-------