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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Couper, Keith, Quinn, Tom, Booth, Katie, Lall, Ranjit, Devrell, Anne, Orriss, Barry, Regan, Scott, Yeung, Joyce, Perkins, Gavin D.
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