LUCAS II Device for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Nonselective Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Population Leads to Worse 30-Day Survival Rate Than Manual Chest Compressions

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11120%2F20%3A43920351" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11120/20:43920351 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00023884:_____/20:00008755

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.06.022" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.06.022</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.06.022" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.06.022</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

LUCAS II Device for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Nonselective Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Population Leads to Worse 30-Day Survival Rate Than Manual Chest Compressions

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Background: The LUCAS (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System; Physio-Control Inc./Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was developed for automatic chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Evidence on the use of this device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) suggests that it should not be used routinely because it has no superior effects. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of CPR for OHCA with and without LUCAS via a regional nonurban emergency medical service (EMS) physician-present prehospital medical system. Methods: We analyzed a prospective registry of all consecutive OHCA patients in four EMS stations. Two of them used a LUCAS device in all CPR, and the EMS crews in the other two stations used manual CPR. Individuals with contraindication to LUCAS or with EMS-witnessed arrest were excluded. Results: Data from 278 patients were included in the analysis, 144 with LUCAS and 134 with manual CPR. There were more witnessed arrests in the LUCAS group (79.17% vs. 64.18%; p = 0.0074) and patients in the LUCAS group were older (p = 0.03). We found no significant difference in return of spontaneous circulation (30.6% in non-LUCAS vs. 25% in LUCAS; p = 0.35). In the LUCAS group, we observed significantly more conversions from nonshockable to shockable rhythm (20.7% vs. 10.10%; p = 0.04). The 30-day survival rate was significantly lower in the LUCAS group (5.07% vs. 16.31% in the non-LUCAS group; p = 0.044). At 180-day follow-up, we observed no significant difference (5.45% in non-LUCAS vs. 9.42% in LUCAS; p = 0.25). Conclusions: Use of the LUCAS system decreased survival rate in OHCA patients. Significantly higher 30-day mortality was seen in LUCAS-treated patients.

Název v anglickém jazyce

LUCAS II Device for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Nonselective Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Population Leads to Worse 30-Day Survival Rate Than Manual Chest Compressions

Popis výsledku anglicky

Background: The LUCAS (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System; Physio-Control Inc./Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was developed for automatic chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Evidence on the use of this device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) suggests that it should not be used routinely because it has no superior effects. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of CPR for OHCA with and without LUCAS via a regional nonurban emergency medical service (EMS) physician-present prehospital medical system. Methods: We analyzed a prospective registry of all consecutive OHCA patients in four EMS stations. Two of them used a LUCAS device in all CPR, and the EMS crews in the other two stations used manual CPR. Individuals with contraindication to LUCAS or with EMS-witnessed arrest were excluded. Results: Data from 278 patients were included in the analysis, 144 with LUCAS and 134 with manual CPR. There were more witnessed arrests in the LUCAS group (79.17% vs. 64.18%; p = 0.0074) and patients in the LUCAS group were older (p = 0.03). We found no significant difference in return of spontaneous circulation (30.6% in non-LUCAS vs. 25% in LUCAS; p = 0.35). In the LUCAS group, we observed significantly more conversions from nonshockable to shockable rhythm (20.7% vs. 10.10%; p = 0.04). The 30-day survival rate was significantly lower in the LUCAS group (5.07% vs. 16.31% in the non-LUCAS group; p = 0.044). At 180-day follow-up, we observed no significant difference (5.45% in non-LUCAS vs. 9.42% in LUCAS; p = 0.25). Conclusions: Use of the LUCAS system decreased survival rate in OHCA patients. Significantly higher 30-day mortality was seen in LUCAS-treated patients.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Journal of Emergency Medicine

ISSN

0736-4679

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

59

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

5

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

673-679

Kód UT WoS článku

000598590500016

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85089133784