Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial

Esibov, Alexander; Banville, Isabelle; Chapman, Fred W.; Boomars, René; Box, Martyn; Rubertsson, Sten

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.02.028

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, compressions were interrupted for a median of 36 s to apply the mechanical chest compression device. Both the manual and mechanical CPR groups had good quality CPR as evidenced by the overall CCFs which may have contributed to the lack of difference between duration of the longest pause in compressions, number of compressions received per minute, defibrillation success rate, or outcome [29]. The high manual CCF in this study is not a feature of most studies of manual CPR and may have limited the effectiveness of delivering a high CCF using a mechanical device.…”

Section: How Can Chest Compression Pauses Be Reduced?mentioning

confidence: 79%

Chest compression pauses during defibrillation attempts

Deakin

Koster²

2016

Current Opinion in Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: How Can Chest Compression Pauses Be Reduced?mentioning

confidence: 79%

Chest compression pauses during defibrillation attempts

Deakin

Koster²

2016

Current Opinion in Critical Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In der Untersuchung wurde ein abweichender Algorithmus unter Einbeziehung des mechanischen Unterstützungssystems mit der manuellen Thoraxkompression nach den geltenden Leitlinien verglichen [15]. Dass die Qualität der Thoraxkompression im Hinblick auf die Merkmale der Leitlinien stieg, ist schon erwähnt worden [16].…”

Section: Outcomeunclassified

Automated Chest Compression Device – Neues Spielzeug oder Segen für den Rettungsdienst?

Gerdes¹,

Neumann²,

Flentje³

et al. 2018

retten!

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… 1 In the LINC randomised controlled trial of the use of mechanical chest compression devices in OHCA, a substudy found that the median chest compression pause associated with device deployment was 36.0 s (IQR 19.5–45.5). 7 Such pauses are associated with a reduction in coronary pressure during the early part of a cardiac arrest and may therefore offset the potential benefit of improved chest compression delivery associated with devices. 8 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study

Couper

Velho²,

Quinn

et al. 2018

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of training strategy on team deployment of a mechanical chest compression device.DesignRandomised controlled manikin trial.SettingLarge teaching hospital in the UK.ParticipantsTwenty teams, each comprising three clinicians. Participating individuals were health professionals with intermediate or advanced resuscitation training.InterventionsTeams were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either standard mechanical chest compression device training or pit-crew device training. Training interventions lasted up to 1 h. Performance was measured immediately after training in a standardised simulated cardiac arrest scenario in which teams were required to deploy a mechanical chest compression device.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome was chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression. Secondary outcomes included cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and mechanical device deployment metrics, and non-technical skill performance. Outcomes were assessed using video recordings of the test scenario.ResultsIn relation to the primary outcome of chest compression flow fraction in the minute preceding the first mechanical chest compression, we found that pit-crew training was not superior to standard training (0.76 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.79) vs 0.77 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.82), mean difference −0.01 (95% CI −0.06 to 0.03), P=0.572). There was also no difference between groups in performance in relation to any secondary outcome.ConclusionsPit-crew training, compared with standard training, did not improve team deployment of a mechanical chest device in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario.Trial registration numberISRCTN43049287; Pre-results.

show abstract

Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial

Cited by 40 publications

References 28 publications

Chest compression pauses during defibrillation attempts

Chest compression pauses during defibrillation attempts

Automated Chest Compression Device – Neues Spielzeug oder Segen für den Rettungsdienst?

Training approaches for the deployment of a mechanical chest compression device: a randomised controlled manikin study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About