Cargando…
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: A multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT)
BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices deliver high-quality chest compressions. Early data suggests that mechanical devices may be superior to manual chest compressions in adults following an in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. To determine the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier/north-Holland Biomedical Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33038438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.033 |
_version_ | 1783633489790238720 |
---|---|
author | Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Booth, Katie Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Regan, Scott Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. |
author_facet | Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Booth, Katie Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Regan, Scott Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. |
author_sort | Couper, Keith |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices deliver high-quality chest compressions. Early data suggests that mechanical devices may be superior to manual chest compressions in adults following an in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. To determine the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness trial in this population, we undertook a feasibility randomised controlled trial. METHODS: We undertook a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT). Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients that were in a non-shockable rhythm were randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive mechanical CPR (Jolfe AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or ongoing manual CPR. Recruitment was led by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome was the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Patients were enrolled under a model of deferred consent. We report data using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Over a two-year period, we recruited 127 patients across five UK hospitals. We recruited 55.2% (95% CI 48.5%–61.8%) of eligible study participants in site operational recruitment hours. Most participants were male (n = 76, 59.8%) with a mean age of 72 (95% CI: 69.9–74.9) years. Median arrest duration was 18 (IQR 13−29) minutes. In patients randomised to mech-CPR, median time from CPR start to device deployment was 11 (IQR 7−15) minutes. ROSC was achieved in 27.6% (n = 35) participants and 4.7% (n = 6) were alive at 30-days. CONCLUSION: COMPRESS-RCT identified important factors that preclude progression to an effectiveness trial of mechanical CPR in the hospital setting in the UK. Findings will inform the design of future in-hospital intra-arrest intervention trials. ISRCTN38139840, date of registration 9th January 2017. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7790762 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier/north-Holland Biomedical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77907622021-01-14 Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: A multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT) Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Booth, Katie Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Regan, Scott Yeung, Joyce Perkins, Gavin D. Resuscitation Clinical Paper BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices deliver high-quality chest compressions. Early data suggests that mechanical devices may be superior to manual chest compressions in adults following an in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. To determine the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness trial in this population, we undertook a feasibility randomised controlled trial. METHODS: We undertook a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT). Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients that were in a non-shockable rhythm were randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive mechanical CPR (Jolfe AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or ongoing manual CPR. Recruitment was led by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome was the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Patients were enrolled under a model of deferred consent. We report data using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Over a two-year period, we recruited 127 patients across five UK hospitals. We recruited 55.2% (95% CI 48.5%–61.8%) of eligible study participants in site operational recruitment hours. Most participants were male (n = 76, 59.8%) with a mean age of 72 (95% CI: 69.9–74.9) years. Median arrest duration was 18 (IQR 13−29) minutes. In patients randomised to mech-CPR, median time from CPR start to device deployment was 11 (IQR 7−15) minutes. ROSC was achieved in 27.6% (n = 35) participants and 4.7% (n = 6) were alive at 30-days. CONCLUSION: COMPRESS-RCT identified important factors that preclude progression to an effectiveness trial of mechanical CPR in the hospital setting in the UK. Findings will inform the design of future in-hospital intra-arrest intervention trials. ISRCTN38139840, date of registration 9th January 2017. Elsevier/north-Holland Biomedical Press 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7790762/ /pubmed/33038438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.033 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Clinical Paper Couper, Keith Quinn, Tom Booth, Katie Lall, Ranjit Devrell, Anne Orriss, Barry Regan, Scott 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 multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial (COMPRESS-RCT) |
title | Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: A multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled 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 multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled 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 multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled 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 multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled 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 multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled 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 multi-centre feasibility randomised controlled trial (compress-rct) |
topic | Clinical Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790762/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33038438 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.033 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT couperkeith mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT quinntom mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT boothkatie mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT lallranjit mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT devrellanne mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT orrissbarry mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT reganscott mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT yeungjoyce mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct AT perkinsgavind mechanicalversusmanualchestcompressionsinthetreatmentofinhospitalcardiacarrestpatientsinanonshockablerhythmamulticentrefeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialcompressrct |