The Study Protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest) Study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine

Rolf Karlsten⁵  Johan Herlitz⁶  Douglas Chamberlain²  Bjarne Madsen Hardig³  Fredrik Arnwald³  Martyn Box⁴  David Halliwell⁴  Anna Lindblad¹  Robert Kastberg¹  Gunnar Skoog¹  David Smekal⁵  Erik Lindgren⁵  Helena Puggioli⁹  Björn Ahlstedt⁹  Wendy Bruins⁷  Rene Boomars⁷  Rob Lichtveld⁷  Thomas Nyman⁸  Liselott Rehn⁸  Johan Silfverstolpe⁸  Sten Rubertsson⁵ 

[1] Gävle center hospital, Gävle, Sweden;Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom;Physio-Control/Jolife AB, Ideon Science Park, 223 70, Lund, Sweden;South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, Abbey Court, Eagle way, Exeter, United Kingdom;Department of Surgical Sciences/Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;The Center of Prehospital Research in Western Sweden, University College of Borås, Borås, Sweden;Regional Ambulance Service Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands;Region Skånes Prehospitala Centrum, Skånes University Hospital, Lund, Sweden;Västerås central hospital, Västerås, Sweden

关键词: Pulseless electrical activity;    Asystole;    Ventricular fibrillation;    External chest compressions;    Defibrillation;    Mechanical chest compression;    Cardiac arrest;   

Others  :  826173
DOI  :  10.1186/1757-7241-21-5

 received in 2012-06-07, accepted in 2013-01-20,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO_2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation.

Methods/design

This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1 webcite).

Results

Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR.

Conclusion

This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Rubertsson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Steen S, Liao Q, Pierre L, Paskevicius A, Sjoberg T: Evaluation of LUCAS, a new device for automatic mechanical compression and active decompression resuscitation. Resuscitation 2002, 55:285-299.
• [2]Rubertsson S, Karlsten R: Increased cortical cerebral blood flow with LUCAS; a new device for mechanical chest compressions compared to standard external compressions during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2005, 65:357-363.
• [3]Axelsson C, Karlsson T, Axelsson AB, Herlitz J: Mechanical active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (P(ET)CO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Resuscitation 2009, 80:1099-1103.
• [4]Wyss CA, Fox J, Franzeck F, et al.: Mechanical versus manual chest compression during CPR in a cardiac catherisation setting. Cardivascular Med 2010, 12:92-96.
• [5]Wagner H, Madsen Hardig B, Harnek J, Gotberg M, Olivecrona G: Aspects on resuscitation in the coronary interventional catheter laboratory [abstract]. Circulation 2010, 23:A91.
• [6]Wagner H, Terkelsen CJ, Friberg H, et al.: Cardiac arrest in the catheterisation laboratory: a 5-year experience of using mechanical chest compressions to facilitate PCI during prolonged resuscitation efforts. Resuscitation 2010, 81:383-387.
• [7]Bonnemeier H, Simonis G, Olivecrona G, et al.: Continuous mechanical chest compression during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with pulseless electrical activity. Resuscitation 2011, 82:155-159.
• [8]Friberg H, Rundgren M: Submersion, accidental hypothermia and cardiac arrest, mechanical chest compressions as a bridge to final treatment: a case report. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2009, 17:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Gottignies P, Devriendt J, Tran Ngoc E, et al.: Thrombolysis associated with LUCAS (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System) as treatment of valve thrombosis resulting in cardiac arrest. Am J Emerg Med 2010, 29:476. e3–476.e5
• [10]Grogaard HK, Wik L, Eriksen M, Brekke M, Sunde K: Continuous mechanical chest compressions during cardiac arrest to facilitate restoration of coronary circulation with percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 50:1093-1094.
• [11]Holmstrom P, Boyd J, Sorsa M, Kuisma M: A case of hypothermic cardiac arrest treated with an external chest compression device (LUCAS) during transport to re-warming. Resuscitation 2005, 67:139-141.
• [12]Wik L, Kiil S: Use of an automatic mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS) as a bridge to establishing cardiopulmonary bypass for a patient with hypothermic cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2005, 66:391-394.
• [13]Nolan JP, Deakin CD, Soar J, Bottiger BW, Smith G: European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2005, 67:S39-S86.
• [14]Handley AJ, Koster R, Monsieurs K, Perkins GD, Davies S, Bossaert L: European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005. Section 2. Adult basic life support and use of automated external defibrillators. Resuscitation 2005, 67:S7-S23.
• [15]Axelsson C, Nestin J, Svensson L, Axelsson AB, Herlitz J: Clinical consequences of the introduction of mechanical chest compression in the EMS system for treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a pilot study. Resuscitation 2006, 71:47-55.
• [16]Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, Rubertsson S: A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2011, 82:702-706.
• [17]LUCAS™ 1 Chest Compression System, Instructions for Use. http://www.lucas-cpr.com/doc_en/LUCAS%20V2-IFU_ENNLFR_screen2.pdf webcite
• [18]LUCAS™ 2 Chest Compression System, Instructions for Use. http://www.lucas-cpr.com/doc_en/100666-01_Rev_A_LUCAS2_IFU_GB_Web2.pdf webcite
• [19]Nationella registret för hjärtstopp utanför sjukhus, Årsrapport 2007. http://www.hlr.nu/sites/hlr.nu/files/attachment/rapport2007_0.pdf webcite
• [20]O’Brien PC, Fleming TR, et al.: A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979, 35:549-556.
• [21]Cheskes S, Schmicker RH, Christenson J, et al.: Perishock pause: an independent predictor of survival from out-of-hospital shockable cardiac arrest. Circulation 2011, 124:58-66.
• [22]Lerner EB, Persse D, Souders CM, et al.: Design of the Circulation Improving Resuscitation Care (CIRC) Trial: a new state of the art design for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest research. Resuscitation 2011, 82:294-299.
• [23]Perkins GD, Woollard M, Cooke MW, et al.: Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2010, 18:58. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Hallstrom A, Rea TD, Sayre MR, et al.: Manual chest compression vs use of an automated chest compression device during resuscitation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial. JAMA 2006, 295:2620-2628.
• [25]Baubin M, Rabl W: How to detect side effects of chest compressions? Resuscitation 2011, 82:1262.
• [26]Smekal D, Johansson J, Huzevka T, Rubertsson S: No difference in autopsy detected injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions compared with mechanical compressions with the LUCAS device–a pilot study. Resuscitation 2009, 80:1104-1107.
• [27]Menzies D, Barton D, Nolan N: Does the LUCAS device result in increased injury during CPR? [abstract]. Resuscitation 2010, 81S:S1-S114.