Home
 
   Health
 Aging
 Asian Health
 Events
 Fitness
 Food & Nutrition
 Happiness
 Men's Health
 Mental Health
 Occupational Health
 Parenting
 Public Health
 Sleep Hygiene
 Women's Health
 
   Healthcare
 Africa
 Australia
 Canada Healthcare
 China Healthcare
 India Healthcare
 New Zealand
 South Africa
 UK
 USA
 World Healthcare
 
 Latest Research
 Aging
 Alternative Medicine
 Anaethesia
 Biochemistry
 Biotechnology
 Cancer
 Cardiology
 Clinical Trials
 Cytology
 Dental
 Dermatology
 Embryology
 Endocrinology
 ENT
 Environment
 Epidemiology
 Gastroenterology
 Genetics
 Gynaecology
 Haematology
 Immunology
 Infectious Diseases
 Medicine
 Metabolism
 Microbiology
 Musculoskeletal
 Nephrology
 Neurosciences
 Obstetrics
 Ophthalmology
 Orthopedics
 Paediatrics
 Pathology
 Pharmacology
 Physiology
 Physiotherapy
 Psychiatry
 Radiology
 Rheumatology
 Sports Medicine
 Surgery
 Toxicology
 Urology
 
   Medical News
 Awards & Prizes
 Epidemics
 Launch
 Opinion
 Professionals
 
   Special Topics
 Ethics
 Euthanasia
 Evolution
 Feature
 Odd Medical News
 Climate

Last Updated: Sep 15, 2017 - 4:49:58 AM
Research Article
Latest Research Channel

subscribe to Latest Research newsletter
Latest Research

   EMAIL   |   PRINT

Study finds mechanical chest compressions are equally as effective as manual CPR


Sep 1, 2013 - 4:00:00 AM

 

The study was designed to show a better 4-hour survival in the group treated with mechanical chest compressions, and this was not achieved, said lead investigator Sten Rubertsson, MD, PhD, professor and specialist consultant at Uppsala University and Uppsala University Hospital.

But we now have the scientific support to allow us to use mechanical chest compressions and defibrillate during ongoing compressions, he said, adding that this could potentially increase the efficiency and safety of emergency personnel as they deliver care during transportation of patients.

The LINC study included 2,589 patients from six European sites who had suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and needed resuscitation.

Manual chest compressions were started on all patients as soon as EMS personnel arrived on the scene.

Patients were then randomized to either be kept on manual chest compressions (n=1289) or be switched to mechanical compressions with defibrillation during ongoing chest compressions (n=1300). Mechanical chest compressions were delivered with the LUCAS Chest Compression System (Physio-Control/Jolife AB, Lund Sweden), a piston-driven device with a suction cup designed to deliver compressions according to resuscitation guidelines.

In both groups, ventilation and drugs were given according to guidelines.

The study showed that four hours after the initiation of CPR, survival rates were similar in both the mechanical and manual CPR groups (23.6% versus 23.7%).

Later outcomes were also similar, including the rate of restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), the number of patients who arrived at the emergency room with a palpable pulse, the number of patients who survived until discharge from intensive care, and neurological outcomes at one and six months.

Theoretically, mechanical chest compressions should offer an advantage over manual chest compressions because the latter often have insufficient depth, incorrect rate and frequent interruptions, explained Dr. Rubertsson.

The efficacy of traditional manual chest compression is heavily dependent on the skills and endurance of rescuers, and is compromised by periods of hands-off time and transportation interruptions, he said. Even at high efficiency it delivers only approximately 30% of normal cardiac output, resulting in decreased blood flow to vital organs.

Mechanical compressions should theoretically improve CPR, but to date there is no definitive evidence from large randomised trials to show this.

Two randomized pilot studies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have compared mechanical chest compressions with mechanical compressions from the LUCAS device (1-2), and neither study found any significant difference between groups; however, the study populations were small.

The results of the current study suggest clinical equipoise, said Dr. Rubertsson - although, he said slight adjustments to the treatment algorithms might result in clinically significant differences in the future.

With the algorithm we used for mechanical CPR we found that time to first defibrillation was delayed compared to manual CPR and this could explain why we were not able to show improved outcome. Therefore in the future we will recommend defibrillation without delay, before deployment of the device.

Regarding safety, I would say that we can deem the device is safe, based upon the low number of severe adverse events and adverse events reported in the study, he said.

Survivors at 6 months had good neurologic outcome (99% in the mechanical group and 94% in the manual) and in a previously published pilot study of 85 patients we did not find any difference between groups in injuries at autopsy. What remains to be finally analysed is the cohort of 200 patients within LINC that underwent autopsy.

Evidence showing equal efficacy for both manual and mechanical compressions is an added benefit to Emergency Medical Systems (EMS) workers.

EMS workers can now use a device to provide CPR which means they have an extra pair of hands available for other possible interventions, said Dr. Rubertsson.

Safety during transportation in the ambulance can also be improved since now the crew can have safety belts and still provide CPR.

He emphasized that the results of the LINC trial are only applicable to the LUCAS device and cannot be generalized to other mechanical chest compressors.


Subscribe to Latest Research Newsletter

Enter your email address:


 Feedback
For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 
Contact us

RxPG Online

Nerve

Online ACLS Certification

 

    Full Text RSS

© All rights reserved by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited (India)