Journal
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages I-+Publisher
NIHR JOURNALS LIBRARY
DOI: 10.3310/hta21110
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Department of Health [07/37/69] Funding Source: Medline
- National Institute for Health Research [07/37/69, NF-SI-0514-10139] Funding Source: researchfish
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: Mechanical chest compression devices may help to maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We evaluated whether or not the introduction of Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assistance System-2 (LUCAS-2; Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Objective: Evaluation of the LUCAS-2 device as a routine ambulance service treatment for OHCA. Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial including adults with non-traumatic OHCA. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were blind to treatment allocation. Blinding of the ambulance These results were obtained both in the within-trial analysis and in the analysis that modelled lifetime costs and outcomes. When missing data were handled by multiple imputation, estimated costs were higher in both arms, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios also indicated that manual CPR dominates LUCAS-2. Conclusions The trial, systematic review and economic evaluation all found that there was no evidence that mechanical chest compression using LUCAS-2 was superior to standard manual chest compression.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available