Ohio medics to try out new Swedish CPR device

[MMiz]

Ohio medics to try out new Swedish CPR device

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Columbus medics are once again testing a CPR machine in hopes that it can outdo their manual efforts to restart hearts.

For two months, medics from stations 6 and 24 in Columbus will use a device called the Lucas CPR chest-compression system. The Swedish product is sold by a division of Medtronic and costs about $14,500 per machine.

Read more!

 

[DR_KSIDE]

I have seen that machine used and it always reminded me of the video of the CPR Jackhammer. Zoll makes one, I think it is called the Autopulse, that, in my opinion, looks easier to use.

 

[Ridryder911]

It will be interesting to see how many litigation's will be filled. As in substitute blood that the patients were not officially informed of risks and alternative routes, permission, etc.

R/r 911

 

[Sparky79]

It will be interesting to see how many litigation's will be filled. As in substitute blood that the patients were not officially informed of risks and alternative routes, permission, etc.

R/r 911

That was the first thing that popped into my head as well.

I don't understand how they could be "testing" an unproven product without fully informing their test subjects and having signed release forms. (obviously not possible with a patient who needs CPR:unsure

 

[BEorP]

That was the first thing that popped into my head as well.

I don't understand how they could be "testing" an unproven product without fully informing their test subjects and having signed release forms. (obviously not possible with a patient who needs CPR:unsure

How could any unproved product be validated for patients in cardiac arrest without waiver of consent trials? The trial will surely be approved by an IRB and not enroll more patients than are needed to demonstrate a difference in outcomes.

 

[flhtci01]

That was the first thing that popped into my head as well.

I don't understand how they could be "testing" an unproven product without fully informing their test subjects and having signed release forms. (obviously not possible with a patient who needs CPR:unsure

I don't remember the exact details as this was from a couple of years ago but basically the testing can take place in an emergency situation when there is not enough time to get an informed consent after the public has been informed.

Iowa Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium addressed this issue by having informational presentations in the regions of testing. People could "opt out" of being a test subject by wearing a special bracelet.

 

[NolaRabbit]

My service field-tested the Lucas for a few months and our reviews pretty positive. I think it was a bit too cost-prohibitive in the end, though.

 

[Flight-LP]

That was the first thing that popped into my head as well.

I don't understand how they could be "testing" an unproven product without fully informing their test subjects and having signed release forms. (obviously not possible with a patient who needs CPR:unsure

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=10456

They are not "testing" anything. Trials have already taken place and it is approved for us in the U.S. (marketed and sold by Physio-Control)

Prior to that, it has been used in Europe for several years with great results. Considering this device effectively takes the mechanical strain out of CPR and thus eliminating ineffective compressions (i.e. one of your leading factors for inability to obtain ROSC), you may not want to dismiss it so quickly.

The above thread has some pro's and con's to the Zoll Autopulse that you may be interested in.

 

[BEorP]

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=10456

They are not "testing" anything. Trials have already taken place and it is approved for us in the U.S. (marketed and sold by Physio-Control)

Prior to that, it has been used in Europe for several years with great results. Considering this device effectively takes the mechanical strain out of CPR and thus eliminating ineffective compressions (i.e. one of your leading factors for inability to obtain ROSC), you may not want to dismiss it so quickly.

The above thread has some pro's and con's to the Zoll Autopulse that you may be interested in.

The fact remains though that mechanical CPR devices have not been proven to improve outcomes.

 

[traumateam1]

The fact remains though that mechanical CPR devices have not been proven to improve outcomes.

But it frees up a medic to do other things right? Meds, manual defib, tube the patient, and all that fun stuff.

 

[Flight-LP]

The fact remains though that mechanical CPR devices have not been proven to improve outcomes.

The only that has been proven to improve outcomes is God's good humor.

Regardless of how good we get in the field, in the hospital, in the OR, or anywhere else, there are individual physiological factors that no one will ever be able to change. However, this device, along with other interventional tools such as the ITD, sound communication among code team members, early intervention with ALS capabilities, and better access to care, has been shown to increase the possibility of ROSC. That has been proven time and time again. ROSC is the only tangible definition of success that we remotely can control pre-hospital. End outcome involving neuroligical deficits is beyond our capabilities. We can aid in the reduction of neuro deficits, but only time and devine intervention currently dictate the final outcome...................

 

[marineman]

The fact remains though that mechanical CPR devices have not been proven to improve outcomes.

That's why several companies are spending millions of dollars to do research to either prove or disprove that point.

My area is a part of the Autopulse study. When we learned about the procedure for the study there is some sort of law for this type of study where informed consent is obviously impossible that allows us to carry on with the study as long as it's for research. Again not sure how they worded it and I'm probably leaving parts out but that's the basics of it.

 

[downunderwunda]

Mechanical CPR devices do provide better outcomes. Studies show that a person can perform 'effective' CPR for about 1 minute, then it diminishes.

Isnt this a good thing?

 

[BEorP]

The only that has been proven to improve outcomes is God's good humor.

Regardless of how good we get in the field, in the hospital, in the OR, or anywhere else, there are individual physiological factors that no one will ever be able to change. However, this device, along with other interventional tools such as the ITD, sound communication among code team members, early intervention with ALS capabilities, and better access to care, has been shown to increase the possibility of ROSC. That has been proven time and time again. ROSC is the only tangible definition of success that we remotely can control pre-hospital. End outcome involving neuroligical deficits is beyond our capabilities. We can aid in the reduction of neuro deficits, but only time and devine intervention currently dictate the final outcome...................

I don't understand why you don't think that prehospital treatment can change the final outcomes. ROSC doesn't matter. I don't care if my dad suffers a cardiac arrest and the paramedics get a ROSC if he does not have a good neuro outcome. Are you familiar with the ROC PRIMED study? They looking at survival to hospital discharge and neurological outcomes to validate the use of the ITD and to try to determine the optimal amount of up front CPR.

 

[Grady_emt]

But it frees up a medic to do other things right? Meds, manual defib, tube the patient, and all that fun stuff.

I don't remember the last time I saw a medic do CPR, is'nt that what EMTs and Fire are for???h34r:

 

[BEorP]

Mechanical CPR devices do provide better outcomes.

Show me the study that proved this.

 

[BEorP]

But it frees up a medic to do other things right? Meds, manual defib, tube the patient, and all that fun stuff.

Sure, and more importantly if you are transporting a patient in cardiac arrest it means that no one needs to be standing up in the back doing CPR. But then we should really be raising the question of why we are transporting cardiac arrest patients...

 

[imurphy]

I was trained on the LUCAS in Ambex05. I like the machine, and the idea. Some of the stats I read on it at the time are very positive

 

[firemedic1563]

Show me the study that proved this.

Sorry to bring the horse back, but was seeing who else uses these and had to respond:

Olson Neurologic outcome study

LUND University study

Durnez In Hospital outcomes

There are a few more. And yes, this device is approved for use in the US by the FDA with 510K clearance, so consent is not needed.

 

[Michael Sykes]

Sure, and more importantly if you are transporting a patient in cardiac arrest it means that no one needs to be standing up in the back doing CPR. But then we should really be raising the question of why we are transporting cardiac arrest patients...

I was taught, as a First Responder, that they aren't dead until they're cold and dead, or when rigor starts. There's always that slim chance of survival; otherwise, we might as well throw our AED's in the dumpster. Now, obviously, if we arrive on the scene of an arrest, and the person's as stiff as our backboard, we're better off calling for the coroner.