EBQ:Paramedic Trial: Difference between revisions
(conclusion) |
(major points of article) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
The use of LUCAS-2 in non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests did not show improvement over manual CPR in patient survival to 30 days. | The use of LUCAS-2 in non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests did not show improvement over manual CPR in patient survival to 30 days. | ||
==Major Points== | ==Major Points== | ||
*Survival to 30 days had no difference with 6% (LUCAS-2) vs. 7% (control) | |||
*No difference in ROSC, survival of event, survival to 3 months, or survival to 12 months | |||
*Decreased favorable neurologic outcome (CPC 1 or 2) in LUCAS-2 group | |||
==Study Design== | ==Study Design== | ||
Revision as of 22:24, 7 August 2015
Under Review Journal Club Article
Perkins GD. et al.. "Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial". Lancet. 2015. 385(9972):947-55.
PubMed Full text PDF
PubMed Full text PDF
Clinical Question
Does prehospital LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest?
Conclusion
The use of LUCAS-2 in non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrests did not show improvement over manual CPR in patient survival to 30 days.
Major Points
- Survival to 30 days had no difference with 6% (LUCAS-2) vs. 7% (control)
- No difference in ROSC, survival of event, survival to 3 months, or survival to 12 months
- Decreased favorable neurologic outcome (CPC 1 or 2) in LUCAS-2 group