Mechanical Versus Manual Chest Compression

NCT ID: NCT04069377

Last Updated: 2019-08-28

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

214 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-01-01

Study Completion Date

2018-04-15

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

In this study, the investigators compared mechanical and manual chest compressions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

In this study, the investigators retrospectively analyzed resuscitations performed over a 2-year period and compared manual and mechanical chest compressions in terms of return of spontaneous circulation, 30-day survival, and hospital discharge parameters.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Cardiac Arrest Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Manuel chest compression

Manuel chest compressions will be handled by human efforts.

Manuel chest compressions by human efforts

Intervention Type OTHER

In this way chest compressions will be handled by humans themselves.

Mechanical chest compression

In the study, chest compression in the mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation group was performed with the Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) Chest Compression System (LUCAS 2).

LUCAS™ 2 Chest Compression System

Intervention Type DEVICE

LUCAS is a portable device designed to rule out the problems encountered during manual chest compression, capable of performing standard and continuous chest compressions at a depth of 4-5 cm and at least 100 times per minute.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

LUCAS™ 2 Chest Compression System

LUCAS is a portable device designed to rule out the problems encountered during manual chest compression, capable of performing standard and continuous chest compressions at a depth of 4-5 cm and at least 100 times per minute.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Manuel chest compressions by human efforts

In this way chest compressions will be handled by humans themselves.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Over 18 age Cardiac arrest cases Out-of-hospital arrest

Exclusion Criteria

\<18 age
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Ankara Training and Research Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Ankara City Hospital Bilkent

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Alp Şener

Clinical Assistant Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine

Ankara, Çankaya, Turkey (Türkiye)

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Turkey (Türkiye)

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Brodal Syversen K, Souvannasacd E, Renger R. Validating the LUCAS(R) mechanical chest compression fit specifications. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Feb;37(2):371-373. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.06.069. Epub 2018 Jun 30. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30686332 (View on PubMed)

Bonnes JL, Brouwer MA, Navarese EP, Verhaert DV, Verheugt FW, Smeets JL, de Boer MJ. Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus CPR Including a Mechanical Chest Compression Device in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis From Randomized and Observational Studies. Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Mar;67(3):349-360.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.023. Epub 2015 Nov 19.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26607332 (View on PubMed)

Gates S, Quinn T, Deakin CD, Blair L, Couper K, Perkins GD. Mechanical chest compression for out of hospital cardiac arrest: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. 2015 Sep;94:91-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.07.002. Epub 2015 Jul 17.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26190673 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

medybu154

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Ventilation in Cardiac Arrest
NCT04657393 TERMINATED NA