Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Study Protocol for the LINC (LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest) Study: a study comparing conventional adult out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a concept with mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, E-ISSN 1757-7241, Vol. 21, no 5Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Sustainable development
The content falls within the scope of Sustainable Development
Abstract [en]

Background The LUCAS™ device delivers mechanical chest compressions that have been shown in experimental studies to improve perfusion pressures to the brain and heart as well as augmenting cerebral blood flow and end tidal CO2, compared with results from standard manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Two randomised pilot studies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients have not shown improved outcome when compared with manual CPR. There remains evidence from small case series that the device can be potentially beneficial compared with manual chest compressions in specific situations. This multicentre study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device whilst allowing defibrillation during on-going CPR, and comparing the results with those of conventional resuscitation. Methods/design This article describes the design and protocol of the LINC-study which is a randomised controlled multicentre study of 2500 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00609778?term=LINC&rank=1 webcite). Results Primary endpoint is four-hour survival after successful restoration of spontaneous circulation. The safety aspect is being evaluated by post mortem examinations in 300 patients that may reflect injuries from CPR. Conclusion This large multicentre study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression in CPR and specifically to the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS™ device when used in association with defibrillation during on-going CPR.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central Ltd. , 2013. Vol. 21, no 5
Keywords [en]
Cardiac arrest, Mechanical chest compression, Defibrillation, External chest compressions, Ventricular fibrillation, Asystole, Pulseless electrical activity
Keywords [sv]
Vårdutveckling
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Research subject
Integrated Caring Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-1675DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-5ISI: 000315588600001PubMedID: 23351178Local ID: 2320/13044OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hb-1675DiVA, id: diva2:869744
Available from: 2015-11-13 Created: 2015-11-13 Last updated: 2024-01-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedhttp://www.sjtrem.com/content/21/1/5

Authority records

Herlitz, J

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Herlitz, J
By organisation
School of Health Science
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 196 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf