Mike Smyth

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.

Basismaßnahmen zur Wiederbelebung Erwachsener und Verwendung automatisierter externer Defibrillatoren@@@Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation.: Kapitel 2 der Leitlinien zur Reanimation 2015 des European Resuscitation Council@@@Section 2 of the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015

Dieses Kapitel beschreibt die Techniken, die beim Kreislaufstillstand eines Erwachsenen angewendet werden sollen. Damit sind die Basismaßnahmen der Reanimation gemeint (BLS: Atemwege freimachen und Unterstützung von Atmung und Kreislauf ohne Hilfsmittel, ausgenommen zum Eigenschutz des Helfers) sowie der Einsatz eines externen automatisierten Defibrillators (AED). Außerdem gehören hierzu einfache Techniken, mit denen Erstickungsanfälle bei Atemwegsverlegung durch Fremdkörper beherrscht werden können. Leitlinien für den EinG.D. Perkins1,2 · A.J. Handley3 · R.W. Koster4 · M. Castrén5 · M.A. Smyth1,6 · T. Olasveengen7 · K.G. Monsieurs8,9 · V. Raffay10 · J.-T. Gräsner11 · V. Wenzel12 · G. Ristagno13 · J. Soar14 1 Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK 2 Critical Care Unit, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK 3 Hadstock, Cambridge, UK 4 Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Niederlande 5 Department of Emergency Medicine and Services, Helsinki University

Mechanical devices for chest compression: to use or not to use?

Purpose of reviewThe delivery of high-quality manual chest compressions is rarely achieved in practice. Mechanical chest compression devices can consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. The recent publication of large prehospital trials of these devices provides important new information about the role of these devices. Recent findingsThe Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC), LUCAS in cardiac arrest (LINC) and Prehospital Randomized Assessment of a Mechanical Compression Device (PARAMEDIC) trials have recently been published. All these large prehospital trials found that the routine use of mechanical compression devices in the prehospital setting did not improve survival rates compared to those observed with manual chest compressions. There remain limited data on the routine use of devices during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Observational studies report favourable outcomes with the use of mechanical devices in special circumstances, including as a bridge to advanced therapies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. SummaryMechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) results in similar survival rates to manual CPR in out of hospital cardiac arrest. There are insufficient data to support or refute the routine use of mechanical CPR devices during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Observational studies demonstrate the feasibility of using mechanical CPR when manual CPR is difficult or impossible, and as a bridge to advanced therapies.

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.

Does the use of dedicated dispatch criteria by Emergency Medical Services optimise appropriate allocation of advanced care resources in cases of high severity trauma? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The deployment of Enhanced Care Teams (ECTs) capable of delivering advanced clinical interventions for patients at the scene of incidents is commonplace by Emergency Medical Services in most developed countries. It is unclear whether primary dispatch models for ECT resources are more efficient at targeting deployment to patients with severe trauma than secondary dispatch, following requests from EMS personnel at scene. The objective of this study was to review the evidence for primary and secondary models in the targeted dispatch of ECT resources to patients with severe traumatic injury. METHODS This review was completed in accordance with a protocol developed using the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EmBase, Web of Knowledge/Science databases and the Cochrane library, focussed on subject headings and keywords involving the dispatch of ECT resources by Emergency Medical Services. Design and results of each study were described. Heterogeneity in the design of the included studies precluded the completion of a meta-analysis. A narrative synthesis of the results therefore was performed. RESULTS Five hundred and forty-eight articles were screened, and 16 were included. Only one study compared the performance of the different models of dispatch. A non-statistically significant reduction in the length of time for HEMS resources to reach incident scenes of 4min was found when primary dispatch protocols were utilised compared to requests from EMS personnel at scene. No effect on mortality; severity of injury or proportion of patients admitted to intensive care was observed. The remaining studies examined the processes utilised within current primary dispatch models but did not perform any comparative analysis with existing secondary dispatch models. CONCLUSIONS This review identifies a lack of evidence supporting the role of primary dispatch models in targeting the deployment of Enhanced Care Teams to patients with severe injuries. It is therefore not possible to identify a model for ECT dispatch within pre-hospital systems that optimises resource utilisation. Further studies are required to assess the efficiency of systems utilised at each stage of the process used to dispatch Enhanced Care Team resources to incidents within regionalised pre-hospital trauma systems.

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.

Self-directed learning: Does it affect team performance?

The ability to function effectively as a member of a team caring or a patient in cardiac arrest is an essential skill for all healthcare tudents to learn.1 This learning invariably begins with developing ffective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) skills as an indiidual and progresses to effective functioning as part of a team. pproaches to teaching these skills varies between institutions.2 raditional teaching methods require students to undertake several ours of cognitive instruction followed by the development and ntegration of motor skills with the non-technical skills required or effective teamwork. In traditional learning environments the nstructor can provide immediate and constructive feedback to he learner to facilitate effective learning. More recently nonraditional methods, including self-directed learning packages, ave shown promise, and may reduce the time and resource burden ecessary to acquire acceptable CPR skills.3 In this issue of Resuscitation, Roppolo et al.4 seek to determine if rst year medical students who had undertaken self-directed learnng could perform CPR, as part of a two-person team, as effectively s those taught via the traditional, classroom-based method. This s an important question to address, as there is a growing body f research that suggests that non-traditional, self-directed methds of learning CPR can be as effective as traditional methods.5–7 any of the non-traditional, self-directed methods require the earner to complete theoretical and practical elements as individals, however, most healthcare professionals will be involved in he management of cardiac arrest as part of a team. It is currently nknown if learning CPR alone, as opposed to in a group, has an mpact on team performance. To answer this question, the authors conducted a randomised ontrolled trial whereby first-year medical students were ranomised to complete one of three courses: (1) HeartCode BLS ystem, (2) BLS anytime, or (3) traditional instructor-led training. n brief, the HeartCode BLS System comprised 1 h on-line cogitive training followed by 40 min individual hands-on practice sing voice activated adult, child and baby manikins (VAM). The AM system provides audible instructions to coach the participant hrough the CPR sequence. If performance deviates outside preefined standards corrective instructions are given, e.g. compress a ittle deeper. Trained facilitators were present to provide brief ori-