EBQ:Paramedic Trial - Revision history

Danbot: Added Funding content

2026-03-21T23:03:42Z

Added Funding content

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:03, 21 March 2026
Line 91:		Line 91:

	==Funding==		==Funding==
			*National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (UK)
			*Physio-Control/Jolife AB provided LUCAS-2 devices

	==See Also==		==See Also==
	[[LINC Trial]]		[[LINC Trial]]

Danbot: Completed empty sections

2026-03-21T22:46:34Z

Completed empty sections

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 21 March 2026
Line 54:		Line 54:
	*Known or apparent pregnancy		*Known or apparent pregnancy

	==Interventions==		==Interventions==
			*LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression device during CPR (intervention group)
			*Manual chest compressions per standard resuscitation guidelines (control group)
			*Both groups received standard advanced life support care including defibrillation and drug administration
			*Randomization occurred at the cluster level (ambulance vehicle)

	==Outcomes==		==Outcomes==
			===Primary Outcome===
			*30-day survival: mechanical CPR 6% vs manual CPR 7% (adjusted OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.15)
			===Secondary Outcomes===
			*ROSC at hospital handover: mechanical 32% vs manual 31%
			*Survival to hospital discharge: mechanical 5.8% vs manual 6.8%
			*Favorable neurological outcome at 3 months (CPC 1-2): mechanical 5.0% vs manual 5.2%
			*No significant difference in any secondary outcome

	===Primary Outcome===		===Primary Outcome===
Line 70:		Line 80:


	==Criticisms ~~& Further Discussion~~==		==Criticisms==
			*Cluster randomization at ambulance level may introduce bias if crew experience varies between vehicles
			*Time from cardiac arrest to LUCAS deployment was variable and may have reduced compression quality during transition
			*The study was pragmatic in design, meaning variation in how the device was deployed could affect results
			*A numerical (non-significant) trend toward worse outcomes with mechanical CPR was concerning
			*Crossover between groups was permitted when clinically indicated, potentially diluting treatment effects

	==External Links==		==External Links==

Catierey: demographics

2015-08-07T22:53:11Z

demographics

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ambulance stations (selected for being urban and semi-urban) from 4 UK National Health Service (NHS) Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central).
 ===Patient Demographics===
 ===Inclusion Criteria===
 *Vehicle included in trial is first on scene

Catierey: inclusion criteria

2015-08-07T22:40:57Z

inclusion criteria

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 7 August 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	===Patient Demographics===		===Patient Demographics===
	===Inclusion Criteria===		===Inclusion Criteria===
			*Vehicle included in trial is first on scene
			*Patient in cardiac arrest outside of a hospital
			*Resuscitation attempted
			*Known or believed to be ≥18 years of age

	===Exclusion Criteria===		===Exclusion Criteria===

Catierey: exclusion criteria

2015-08-07T22:36:56Z

exclusion criteria

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 7 August 2015
Line 36:		Line 36:

	===Exclusion Criteria===		===Exclusion Criteria===
			*Cardiac arrest caused by trauma
			*Known or apparent pregnancy

	==Interventions==		==Interventions==

Catierey: population description

2015-08-07T22:35:12Z

population description

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 7 August 2015
Line 30:		Line 30:

	==Population==		==Population==
			91 ambulance stations (selected for being urban and semi-urban) from 4 UK National Health Service (NHS) Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central).
	===Patient Demographics===		===Patient Demographics===
	===Inclusion Criteria===		===Inclusion Criteria===

Catierey: study design

2015-08-07T22:27:28Z

study design

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 7 August 2015
Line 27:		Line 27:

	==Study Design==		==Study Design==
			Pragmatic, cluster randomized, controlled trial

	==Population==		==Population==
	===Patient Demographics===		===Patient Demographics===

Catierey: major points of article

2015-08-07T22:24:03Z

major points of article

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 7 August 2015
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==

Catierey: conclusion

2015-08-07T22:12:26Z

conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 7 August 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	==Conclusion==		==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==		==Major Points==

Ostermayer at 21:43, 17 June 2015

2015-06-17T21:43:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 17 June 2015
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\| fulltexturl= http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961886-9/fulltext		\| fulltexturl= http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961886-9/fulltext
	\| pdfurl= http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961886-9.pdf		\| pdfurl= http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961886-9.pdf
			\| status=Under Review
	}}		}}
	==Clinical Question==		==Clinical Question==