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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Couper, Keith, Quinn, Tom, Lall, Ranjit, Devrell, Anne, Orriss, Barry, Seers, Kate, Yeung, Joyce, Perkins, Gavin D.
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