Cargando…
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT)
BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6117876/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0538-6 |
_version_ | 1783351828288634880 |
---|---|
author | Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Seers, Kate Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. |
author_facet | Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Seers, Kate Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. |
author_sort | Couper, Keith |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population. METHODS: COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment. DISCUSSION: The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38139840, date of registration 9th January 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0538-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6117876 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61178762018-09-05 Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Seers, Kate Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population. METHODS: COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment. DISCUSSION: The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38139840, date of registration 9th January 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13049-018-0538-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-08-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6117876/ /pubmed/30165909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0538-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Seers, Kate Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title | Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title_full | Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title_fullStr | Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title_full_unstemmed | Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title_short | Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title_sort | mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (compress-rct) |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6117876/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0538-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT couperkeith mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT quinntom mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT lallranjit mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT devrellanne mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT orrissbarry mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT seerskate mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT yeungjoyce mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT perkinsgavind mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct AT mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmarandomisedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialcompressrct |