PARAMEDIC: mechanical vs. manual chest compressions for out of hospital cardiac arrest

Mechanical compression devices could solve manual resuscitation shortcomings and help maintain its quality. This study compared the mechanical chest compression device LUCAS-2 with manual compressions in out of hospital non traumatic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

The study randomized 4471 patients (1652 to LUCAS-2 and 2819 to the control group) primary end point was 30 day survival and between secondary end points was return of spontaneous circulation and neurological function at 3 months. 

At 30 days, survival rates were similar in both groups (5,1% vs. 5,8%, OR 0,87, IC de 95% 0,61-1,23) even though neurological outcomes were better with manual compression (3,9 vs. 5,9%, OR 0,65, IC 95% 0,45-0,96).

Conclusion

There was no evidence of survival rate increase with mechanical resuscitation compared to manual compressions during out of hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It is not possible to recommend the LUCAS-2 to replace manual compressions for routine use. 

Gavin D. Perkins
2014-11-17

Original title: Mechanical vesus manual chest compressions for Out-of-Arrest: A Cluster randomized trial. The PARAMEDIC Trial.

More articles by this author

Improved survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with the use of automated external defibrillators

This study included patients presenting out of hospital cardiac arrest between 2006 and 2012 in The Netherlands to assess the impact of automated external...

Coronary flow reserve is associated to adverse events regardless angiographic severity.

This study included 329 consecutive patients derived to coronary angiography based on myocardial perfusion tests or PET scan (positron emission tomography). The extension and...

ITALIC PLUS: 6 months of double antiaggregation for no less than 24 months

Article This multicenter study included patients receiving the second generation stent XIENCE V (Abbott Vascular) randomized to 6 and 24 months of double antiaggregation therapy...

DAPT TRIAL: double antiaggregation remains controversial

Article This multicenter randomized control study with placebo was designed to determine the risks and benefits of double antiaggregation for longer than 12 months post...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Rolling Stone: Registry of Intravascular Lithotripsy vs Atherectomy Use in Complex Calcified Lesions

Severe coronary calcification represents one of the main challenges in performing percutaneous coronary intervention, both due to the higher risk of stent underexpansion and...

Can TAVI Be Safely Performed in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve?

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) represents an anatomical challenge for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) due to the frequent presence of elliptical annuli, fibroc calcific...

FFR Assessment for the Selection of Hypertensive Patients Who Benefit from Renal Stenting

Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) represents one of the main causes of secondary hypertension (HTN) and is associated with a higher risk of renal...