Prehospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PaRAMeDIC) trial protocol

Background Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is closely linked to the quality of CPR, but in real life, resuscitation during pre-hospital care and ambulance transport is often suboptimal. Mechanical chest compression devices deliver consistent chest compressions, are not prone to fatigue and could potentially overcome some of the limitations of manual chest compression. However, there is no high-quality evidence that they improve clinical outcomes, or that they are cost effective. The Pre-hospital Randomised Assessment of a Mechanical Compression Device In Cardiac Arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial is a pragmatic cluster randomised study of the LUCAS-2 device in adult patients with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of chest compression using LUCAS-2 on mortality at 30 days post out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, compared with manual chest compression. Secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the effects of LUCAS-2 on survival to 12 months, cognitive and quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Methods: Ambulance service vehicles will be randomised to either manual compression (control) or LUCAS arms. Adult patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, attended by a trial vehicle will be eligible for inclusion. Patients with traumatic cardiac arrest or who are pregnant will be excluded. The trial will recruit approximately 4000 patients from England, Wales and Scotland. A waiver of initial consent has been approved by the Research Ethics Committees. Consent will be sought from survivors for participation in the follow-up phase. Conclusion The trial will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of the LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression device. Trial Registration: The trial is registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN08233942)

Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) : a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (<1%) patients in the control group received LUCAS-2. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar in the LUCAS-2 group (104 [6%] of 1652 patients) and in the manual CPR group (193 [7%] of 2819 patients; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·64-1·15). No serious adverse events were noted. Seven clinical adverse events were reported in the LUCAS-2 group (three patients with chest bruising, two with chest lacerations, and two with blood in mouth). 15 device incidents occurred during operational use. No adverse or serious adverse events were reported in the manual group. INTERPRETATION: We noted no evidence of improvement in 30 day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. On the basis of ours and other recent randomised trials, widespread adoption of mechanical CPR devices for routine use does not improve survival

Paramedic practitioners and emergency admissions

Evidence suggests a positive effect, but future programmes need rigorous assessment before being expande

Researching paramedic clinical practice : a practical guide

Non peer reviewe

The reliability of vital signs in estimating pain severity among adult patients treated by paramedics

Background: The aim of this study was to examine the strength of correlation between initial pain severity score and systolic blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rates among adults reporting pain in the prehospital setting as a means of validating the presence and severity of pain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including all adults with a Glasgow Coma Score >12 assessed by paramedics in a metropolitan area over a 7 day period in 2005. Pain was self-scored by patients using a 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS). Results: Of the patients transported, 1766/3357 (53%) reported pain, and an NRS score was recorded for 1286. Median age was 57 years, 51% were women, and median initial NRS was six. Mean heart rate was 85 (95% CI 84 to 86), mean systolic blood pressure was 139 mmHg (95% CI 138 to 141) and mean respiratory rate was 18 (95% CI 18 to 18). There was no significant correlation between NRS and heart rate (r=0.002, p=0.61, 95% CI −0.007 to +0.011) or blood pressure (r=−0.0007, p=0.81, 95% CI −0.007 to +0.005), although this was statistically significant for initial pain score and respiratory rate (r 0.058, p=0.001, 95% CI 0.024 to 0.093). Conclusion: A lack of any meaningful correlation between pain scores and changes in vital signs in this population demonstrates that these signs cannot be used to validate the severity of pain reported by adult patients

A response to 'Fighting the fire': fire chiefs' proposal to run England's ambulance service...‘Fighting the fire: a response to fire chiefs’, October, 2010

In October 2010, JPP published a comment by Prof Malcolm Woollard, titled ‘Fighting the fire: a response to fire chiefs’ proposal to run England’s ambulance service’, expressing his view as to why the proposal by the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) is not workable. JPP has received a letter regarding this, which is printed below, along with a response from Prof Woollard that also discusses the latest report published by the CFOA. Abstract published with permissio