Author(s): Rubertsson Sten | Silfverstolpe Johan | Rehn Liselott | Nyman Thomas | Lichtveld Rob | Boomars Rene | Bruins Wendy | Ahlstedt Björn | Puggioli Helena | Lindgren Erik | Smekal David | Skoog Gunnar | Kastberg Robert | Lindblad Anna | Halliwell David | Box Martyn | Arnwald Fredrik | Hardig Bjarne Madsen | Chamberlain Douglas | Herlitz Johan | Karlsten Rolf
Journal: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
ISSN 1757-7241
Volume: 21;
Issue: 1;
Start page: 5;
Date: 2013;
Original page
Keywords: Cardiac arrest | Mechanical chest compression | Defibrillation | External chest compressions | Ventricular fibrillation | Asystole | Pulseless electrical activity
ABSTRACT
Abstract Background The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation. Methods/design This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1). Results Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR. Conclusion This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.
Journal: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
ISSN 1757-7241
Volume: 21;
Issue: 1;
Start page: 5;
Date: 2013;
Original page
Keywords: Cardiac arrest | Mechanical chest compression | Defibrillation | External chest compressions | Ventricular fibrillation | Asystole | Pulseless electrical activity
ABSTRACT
Abstract Background The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation. Methods/design This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1). Results Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR. Conclusion This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.
