Kyee Han

Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) : a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. INTERPRETATION We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research HTA - 07/37/69.

Part 9: First Aid 2015 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations

### Definition of First Aid The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) First Aid Task Force first met in June 2013. Comprising nominated members from around the globe appointed by each ILCOR member organization, the task force members first agreed to the goals of first aid and produced a definition of first aid as it might apply to the international setting. Task force members considered an agreed-upon definition essential for the subsequent development of research questions, evidence evaluation, and treatment recommendations. First aid is defined as the helping behaviors and initial care provided for an acute illness or injury. First aid can be initiated by anyone in any situation. A first aid provider is defined as someone trained in first aid who should The goals of first aid are to preserve life, alleviate suffering, prevent further illness or injury, and promote recovery. This definition of first aid addresses the need to recognize injury and illness, the requirement to develop a specific skill base, and the need for first aid providers to simultaneously provide immediate care and activate emergency medical services (EMS) or other medical care as required. First aid assessments and interventions should be medically sound and based on evidence-based medicine or, in the absence of such evidence, on expert medical consensus. The scope of first aid is not purely scientific, as both training and regulatory requirements will influence it. Because the scope of first aid varies among countries, states, and provinces, the treatment recommendations contained herein may need to be refined according to circumstances, need, and regulatory constraints. One difference between this 2015 definition and that used for the 2010 process is that the …

Part 9: First aid

### Definition of First Aid The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) First Aid Task Force first met in June 2013. Comprising nominated members from around the globe appointed by each ILCOR member organization, the task force members first agreed to the goals of first aid and produced a definition of first aid as it might apply to the international setting. Task force members considered an agreed-upon definition essential for the subsequent development of research questions, evidence evaluation, and treatment recommendations. First aid is defined as the helping behaviors and initial care provided for an acute illness or injury. First aid can be initiated by anyone in any situation. A first aid provider is defined as someone trained in first aid who should The goals of first aid are to preserve life, alleviate suffering, prevent further illness or injury, and promote recovery. This definition of first aid addresses the need to recognize injury and illness, the requirement to develop a specific skill base, and the need for first aid providers to simultaneously provide immediate care and activate emergency medical services (EMS) or other medical care as required. First aid assessments and interventions should be medically sound and based on evidence-based medicine or, in the absence of such evidence, on expert medical consensus. The scope of first aid is not purely scientific, as both training and regulatory requirements will influence it. Because the scope of first aid varies among countries, states, and provinces, the treatment recommendations contained herein may need to be refined according to circumstances, need, and regulatory constraints. One difference between this 2015 definition and that used for the 2010 process is that the …

Pre-hospital Assessment of the Role of Adrenaline: Measuring the Effectiveness of Drug administration In Cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC-2): Trial protocol

Despite its use since the 1960s, the safety or effectiveness of adrenaline as a treatment for cardiac arrest has never been comprehensively evaluated in a clinical trial. Although most studies have found that adrenaline increases the chance of return of spontaneous circulation for short periods, many studies found harmful effects on the brain and raise concern that adrenaline may reduce overall survival and/or good neurological outcome. The PARAMEDIC-2 trial seeks to determine if adrenaline is safe and effective in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This is a pragmatic, individually randomised, double blind, controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. Participants will be eligible if they are in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment and advanced life support is initiated. Exclusions are cardiac arrest as a result of anaphylaxis or life threatening asthma, and patient known or appearing to be under 16 or pregnant. 8000 participants treated by 5 UK ambulance services will be randomised between December 2014 and August 2017 to adrenaline (intervention) or placebo (control) through opening pre-randomised drug packs. Clinical outcomes are survival to 30 days (primary outcome), hospital discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months, health related quality of life, and neurological and cognitive outcomes (secondary outcomes). Trial registration (ISRCTN73485024).

Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Mechanical chest compression devices may help to maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We evaluated whether or not the introduction of Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assistance System-2 (LUCAS-2; Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVE Evaluation of the LUCAS-2 device as a routine ambulance service treatment for OHCA. DESIGN Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial including adults with non-traumatic OHCA. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were blind to treatment allocation. Blinding of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. We also conducted a health economic evaluation and a systematic review of all trials of out-of-hospital mechanical chest compression. SETTING Four UK ambulance services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales and South Central), comprising 91 urban and semiurban ambulance stations. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (approximately 1 : 2) to the LUCAS-2 device or manual CPR. PARTICIPANTS Patients were included if they were in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment. Exclusions were patients with cardiac arrest as a result of trauma, with known or clinically apparent pregnancy, or aged < 18 years. INTERVENTIONS Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest; survival without significant neurological impairment [Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2]. RESULTS We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 device and 2819 assigned to control) between 15 April 2010 and 10 June 2013. A total of 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression and 11 (< 1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30-day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 (104/1652, 6.3%) and manual CPR groups [193/2819, 6.8%; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.15]. Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 may have been worse in the LUCAS-2 group (adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99). No serious adverse events were noted. The systematic review found no evidence of a survival advantage if mechanical chest compression was used. The health economic analysis showed that LUCAS-2 was dominated by manual chest compression. LIMITATIONS There was substantial non-compliance in the LUCAS-2 arm. For 272 out of 1652 patients (16.5%), mechanical chest compression was not used for reasons that would not occur in clinical practice. We addressed this issue by using complier average causal effect analyses. We attempted to measure CPR quality during the resuscitation attempts of trial participants, but were unable to do so. CONCLUSIONS There was no evidence of improvement in 30-day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. Our systematic review of recent randomised trials did not suggest that survival or survival without significant disability may be improved by the use of mechanical chest compression. FUTURE WORK The use of mechanical chest compression for in-hospital cardiac arrest, and in specific circumstances (e.g. transport), has not yet been evaluated. TRIAI REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN08233942. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Randomized Trial of Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND Concern about the use of epinephrine as a treatment for out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest led the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation to call for a placebocontrolled trial to determine whether the use of epinephrine is safe and effective in such patients. METHODS In a randomized, double‐blind trial involving 8014 patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest in the United Kingdom, paramedics at five National Health Service ambulance services administered either parenteral epinephrine (4015 patients) or saline placebo (3999 patients), along with standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of survival at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included the rate of survival until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome, as indicated by a score of 3 or less on the modified Rankin scale (which ranges from 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). RESULTS At 30 days, 130 patients (3.2%) in the epinephrine group and 94 (2.4%) in the placebo group were alive (unadjusted odds ratio for survival, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.82; P = 0.02). There was no evidence of a significant difference in the proportion of patients who survived until hospital discharge with a favorable neurologic outcome (87 of 4007 patients [2.2%] vs. 74 of 3994 patients [1.9%]; unadjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.61). At the time of hospital discharge, severe neurologic impairment (a score of 4 or 5 on the modified Rankin scale) had occurred in more of the survivors in the epinephrine group than in the placebo group (39 of 126 patients [31.0%] vs. 16 of 90 patients [17.8%]). CONCLUSIONS In adults with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, the use of epinephrine resulted in a significantly higher rate of 30‐day survival than the use of placebo, but there was no significant between‐group difference in the rate of a favorable neurologic outcome because more survivors had severe neurologic impairment in the epinephrine group. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN73485024.)

Post-admission outcomes of participants in the PARAMEDIC trial : a cluster randomised trial of mechanical or manual chest compressions

BACKGROUND The PARAMEDIC cluster randomised trial evaluated the LUCAS mechanical chest compression device, and did not find evidence that use of mechanical chest compression led to an improvement in survival at 30 days. This paper reports patient outcomes from admission to hospital to 12 months after randomisation. METHODS Information about hospital length of stay and intensive care management was obtained through linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics and the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre. Patients surviving to hospital discharge were approached to complete questionnaires (SF-12v2, EQ-5D, MMSE, HADS and PTSD-CL) at 90days and 12 months. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. RESULTS 377 patients in the LUCAS arm and 658 patients in the manual chest compression were admitted to hospital. Hospital and intensive care length of stay were similar. Long term follow-up assessments were limited by poor response rates (53.7% at 3 months and 55.6% at 12 months). Follow-up rates were lower in those with worse neurological function. Among respondents, long term health related quality of life outcomes and emotional well-being was similar between groups. Cognitive function, measured by MMSE, was marginally lower in the LUCAS arm mean 26.9 (SD 3.7) compared to control mean 28.0 (SD 2.3), adjusted mean difference -1.5 (95% CI -2.6 to -0.4). CONCLUSION There were no clinically important differences identified in outcomes at long term follow-up between those allocated to the mechanical chest compression compared to those receiving manual chest compression.

Bypassing nearest hospital for more distant neuroscience care in head-injured adults with suspected traumatic brain injury: findings of the head injury transportation straight to neurosurgery (HITS-NS) pilot cluster randomised trial

Objective Reconfiguration of trauma services, with direct transport of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to specialist neuroscience centres (SNCs)—bypassing non-specialist acute hospitals (NSAHs), could improve outcomes. However, delays in stabilisation of airway, breathing and circulation (ABC) may worsen outcomes when compared with selective secondary transfer from nearest NSAH to SNC. We conducted a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the feasibility and plausibility of bypassing suspected patients with TBI —directly into SNCs—producing a measurable effect. Setting Two English Ambulance Services. Participants 74 clusters (ambulance stations) were randomised within pairs after matching for important characteristics. Clusters enrolled head-injured adults—injured nearest to an NSAH—with internationally accepted TBI risk factors and stable ABC. We excluded participants attended by Helicopter Emergency Medical Services or who were injured more than 1 hour by road from nearest SNC. Interventions Intervention cluster participants were transported directly to an SNC bypassing nearest NSAH; control cluster participants were transported to nearest NSAH with selective secondary transfer to SNC. Outcomes Trial recruitment rate (target n=700 per annum) and percentage with TBI on CT scan (target 80%) were the primary feasibility outcomes. 30-day mortality, 6-month Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale and quality of life were secondary outcomes. Results 56 ambulance station clusters recruited 293 patients in 12 months. The trial arms were similar in terms of age, conscious level and injury severity. Less than 25% of recruited patients had TBI on CT (n=70) with 7% (n=20) requiring neurosurgery. Complete case analysis showed similar 30-day mortality in the two trial arms (control=8.8 (2.7–14.0)% vs intervention=9.4(2.3–14.0)%). Conclusion Bypassing patients with suspected TBI to SNCs gives an overtriage (false positive) ratio of 13:1 for neurosurgical intervention and 4:1 for TBI. A measurable effect from a full trial of early neuroscience care following bypass is therefore unlikely. Trial registration number ISRCTN68087745.