» Articles » PMID: 28689046

Post-admission Outcomes of Participants in the PARAMEDIC Trial: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Mechanical or Manual Chest Compressions

Overview
Journal Resuscitation
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2017 Jul 10
PMID 28689046
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The PARAMEDIC cluster randomised trial evaluated the LUCAS mechanical chest compression device, and did not find evidence that use of mechanical chest compression led to an improvement in survival at 30 days. This paper reports patient outcomes from admission to hospital to 12 months after randomisation.

Methods: Information about hospital length of stay and intensive care management was obtained through linkage with Hospital Episode Statistics and the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre. Patients surviving to hospital discharge were approached to complete questionnaires (SF-12v2, EQ-5D, MMSE, HADS and PTSD-CL) at 90days and 12 months. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942.

Results: 377 patients in the LUCAS arm and 658 patients in the manual chest compression were admitted to hospital. Hospital and intensive care length of stay were similar. Long term follow-up assessments were limited by poor response rates (53.7% at 3 months and 55.6% at 12 months). Follow-up rates were lower in those with worse neurological function. Among respondents, long term health related quality of life outcomes and emotional well-being was similar between groups. Cognitive function, measured by MMSE, was marginally lower in the LUCAS arm mean 26.9 (SD 3.7) compared to control mean 28.0 (SD 2.3), adjusted mean difference -1.5 (95% CI -2.6 to -0.4).

Conclusion: There were no clinically important differences identified in outcomes at long term follow-up between those allocated to the mechanical chest compression compared to those receiving manual chest compression.

Citing Articles

Assessing the Impact of the Pandemic on Treatment Outcomes for Cardiac Arrest Patients Utilizing Mechanical CPR: A Nationwide Population-Based Observational Study in South Korea.

Kim J, Oh Y, Ahn C J Pers Med. 2024; 14(11).

PMID: 39590564 PMC: 11595693. DOI: 10.3390/jpm14111072.


Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation With Mechanical Chest Compression Device During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A Case Report.

Ujvarosy D, Sebestyen V, Otvos T, Ratku B, Lorincz I, Szuk T Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021; 8:614493.

PMID: 34179123 PMC: 8222585. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.614493.


Testing mechanical chest compression devices of different design for their suitability for prehospital patient transport - a simulator-based study.

Jorgens M, Koniger J, Kanz K, Birkholz T, Hubner H, Pruckner S BMC Emerg Med. 2021; 21(1):18.

PMID: 33541280 PMC: 7860178. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-021-00409-3.


Chronic pain in critical care survivors: a narrative review.

Kemp H, Laycock H, Costello A, Brett S Br J Anaesth. 2019; 123(2):e372-e384.

PMID: 31126622 PMC: 6676238. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.025.


Chest compression-associated injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions versus automated chest compression devices (LUCAS II) - a forensic autopsy-based comparison.

Ondruschka B, Baier C, Bayer R, Hammer N, Dressler J, Bernhard M Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2018; 14(4):515-525.

PMID: 30203237 DOI: 10.1007/s12024-018-0024-5.