1 / 10

North American LUCAS Evaluation

North American LUCAS Evaluation. Dana Yost MICP, Louis Gonzales EMT-P, Charles J Lick MD, Paul Satterlee MD, Michael Levy MD, Joseph Barger MD, Pamela Dodson RN BSN, Fred W Chapman PhD, Robert Niskanen MSEE

clovis
Télécharger la présentation

North American LUCAS Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. North American LUCAS Evaluation Dana Yost MICP, Louis Gonzales EMT-P, Charles J Lick MD, Paul Satterlee MD, Michael Levy MD, Joseph Barger MD, Pamela Dodson RN BSN, Fred W Chapman PhD, Robert Niskanen MSEE Austin Fire Department  Allina Medical Transportation  Anchorage Fire Department  Contra Costa County EMS

  2. Disclosures Source of Funding The North American LUCAS Evaluation was funded and supported by the manufacturer of LUCAS, Jolife AB of Lund, Sweden. The manufacturer provided equipment. Additionally Jolife awarded educational grants to each of the four sites for training purposes. Resurgent Biomedical Consulting was paid by Jolife to manage the project in the US. Disclosures Dana Yost, MICP, City of Redmond/Medic One Division, Clinical Manager, Resurgent Biomedical Consulting LLC. Paid by Jolife AB to manage the NALE project.

  3. Introduction Survival from OHCA remains low. Human factors remain the cause of poor CPR quality.1,2 Cardiac output from mechanical chest compressions is greater than from manual compressions.3,4 The LUCAS™ Chest Compression System (Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) has been successfully implemented in several European communities. US communities are now using the device. There is little data available about the Usability. 1 Wang, H. C., W. C. Chiang, et al. (2007). Resuscitation 2 Perkins, G. D., W. Boyle, et al. (2008). Resuscitation 3 K.Ward, J.Menegazzi, R.Zelenak, R.Sullivan, N.McSwain Jr. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 4 Steen, S., Q. Liao, et al. (2002). Resuscitation

  4. Objectives The primary aim of this pilot project was to evaluate the usability of the LUCAS device in the hands of US pre-hospital providers. We specifically wanted to learn: Fit Ease Effectiveness Does the device fit Americans? How easy is it for providers to apply and use the device? How effective do the providers believe the device to be at providing high quality, minimally interrupted chest compressions?

  5. Methods 66 LUCAS devices were deployed in four large EMS systems in 2009. 332 cases where collected over six months. • 66 LUCAS devices were deployed in four large EMS systems in 2009, selected based • on historical volume of OHCA calls, a proven ability to collect OHCA data, and our • desire to gain experience in several different demographic regions of the US. • 66 LUCAS devices were deployed in four large EMS systems in 2009, selected based • on historical volume of OHCA calls, a proven ability to collect OHCA data, and our • desire to gain experience in several different demographic regions of the US. • 66 LUCAS devices were deployed in four large EMS systems in 2009, selected based • on historical volume of OHCA calls, a proven ability to collect OHCA data, and our • desire to gain experience in several different demographic regions of the US. Agency Site # LUCAS (n) Austin Fire Department Austin Texas 12 101 Allina Medical Transportation Minnesota 36 117 Anchorage Fire Department Anchorage Alaska 6 59 Contra Costa County EMS California 12 55

  6. Methods Eligibility Cardiac arrest At least 18 years old Not known to be pregnant. Presumed traumatic arrests were excluded. All arrest rhythms were included. North American LUCAS Evaluation – Site Report North American LUCAS Evaluation – Site Report North American LUCAS Evaluation – Site Report * 6. Did LUCAS fit the patient? * 6. Did LUCAS fit the patient? Yes Yes, but tight No, the patient was too large No, the patient was too small Yes Yes, but tight No, the patient was too large No, the patient was too small Yes Yes, but tight No, the patient was too large No, the patient was too small

  7. Survey Responses The device fits…

  8. Survey Responses It’s easy to use… It’s effective… This pilot data indicates that application of LUCAS by US prehospital providers is feasible, easy to use, and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further study of the LUCAS device in the US to gain a better understanding of its effect on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and survival. This pilot data indicates that application of LUCAS by US prehospital providers is feasible, easy to use, and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further study of the LUCAS device in the US to gain a better understanding of its effect on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and survival. This pilot data indicates that application of LUCAS by US prehospital providers is feasible, easy to use, and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further study of the LUCAS device in the US to gain a better understanding of its effect on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and survival. Number of cases Number of cases Number of cases Number of cases 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use)

  9. Conclusion The data indicate that application of LUCAS is feasible and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further investigation into device application times. Additionally, we call for studies aimed at a better understanding of the effect of mechanical chest compression systems on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and hospital discharge. This pilot data indicates that application of LUCAS by US prehospital providers is feasible, easy to use, and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further study of the LUCAS device in the US to gain a better understanding of its effect on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and survival. This pilot data indicates that application of LUCAS by US prehospital providers is feasible, easy to use, and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further study of the LUCAS device in the US to gain a better understanding of its effect on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and survival. This pilot data indicates that application of LUCAS by US prehospital providers is feasible, easy to use, and that the device fits most patients. We recommend further study of the LUCAS device in the US to gain a better understanding of its effect on clinical resuscitation outcomes including ROSC and survival. Number of cases Number of cases Number of cases Number of cases 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (0 to 10 scale with 10 being the easiest to use)

  10. Thank You

More Related