Rationale and design of switch Swedeheart: A registry-based, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, open-label multicenter trial to compare prasugrel and ticagrelor for treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: European treatment guidelines recommend prasugrel over ticagrelor for treating patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS), prompting several Swedish administrative regions to transition from ticagrelor to prasugrel as the preferred treatment for patients with ACS. We aim to systematically evaluate this transition to determine the relative efficacy of prasugrel versus ticagrelor in a real-world cohort of patients with ACS. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: The SWITCH SWEDEHEART trial is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, cross-sectional, stepped-wedge cluster-randomized clinical trial, in which administrative regions in Sweden will constitute the clusters. At the start of the study, all clusters will use ticagrelor as the P2Y12 inhibitor drug of choice for ACS. The order in which the clusters will implement the transition from ticagrelor to prasugrel will be randomly assigned. Every 9 months, 1 cluster will switch from ticagrelor to prasugrel as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice for patients with ACS. The primary endpoint is the composite 1-year rate of the death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: The SWITCH SWEDEHEART study will provide an extensive randomized comparison between ticagrelor and prasugrel. Novel therapies are frequently costly and supported by evidence from few or small studies, and systematic evaluation after the introduction is rare. This study will establish an important standard for introducing and evaluating the effects of health care changes within our societies.

Placement Of Cardiac PacemaKEr Trial (POCKET) - rationale and design: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A pacemaker system consists of one or two leads connected to a device that is implanted into a pocket formed just below the collarbone. This pocket is typically subcutaneous, that is, located just above the pectoral fascia. Even though the size of pacemakers has decreased markedly, complications due to superficial implants do occur. An alternative technique would be intramuscular placement of the pacemaker device, but there are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support this approach, which is the rationale for the Placement Of Cardiac PacemaKEr Trial (POCKET). The aim is to study if intramuscular is superior to subcutaneous placement of a pacemaker pocket. METHODS: In October 2016, we started to enroll 200 consecutive patients with an indication for bradycardia pacemaker implantation. Patients are randomized to random block sizes, stratified by age group (cut-off: 65 years) and sex, and then randomized to either subcutaneous or intramuscular implant. A concealed allocation procedure is employed, using sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes. Pocket site is blinded to the patient and in all subsequent care. The primary endpoint is patient overall satisfaction with the pocket location at 24 months as measured using a visual analog scale (VAS) 0-10. Secondary endpoints are: complications, patient-reported satisfaction at 1, 12, and 24 months (overall satisfaction, pain, discomfort, degree of unsightly appearance, movement problems, and sleep problems due to device). CONCLUSIONS: POCKET is a prospective interventional RCT designed to evaluate if intramuscular is superior to subcutaneous placement of a bradycardia pacemaker during a two-year follow-up.

Balloon venoplasty opens the road for an implantable defibrillator patient with complex stenosis.

There is an increasing need for physicians to handle venous obstructions in pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implants. Venoplasty performed by an experienced operator is a simple, safe, and fast way to manage this situation and proceed to implant. Compared to other approaches, this strategy may offer particular advantages.

Per-Protocol and Pre-Defined population analysis of the LINC study.

OBJECTIVE: To perform two predefined sub-group analyses within the LINC study and evaluate if the results were supportive of the previous reported intention to treat (ITT) analysis. METHODS: Predefined subgroup analyses from the previously published LINC study were performed. The Per-Protocol population (PPP) included the randomized patients included in the ITT-population but excluding those with violated inclusion or exclusion criteria and those that did not get the actual treatment to which the patient was randomized. In the Pre-Defined population (PDP) analyses patients were also excluded if the dispatch time to ambulance arrival at the address exceeded 12 min, there was a non-witnessed cardiac arrest, or if it was not possible to determine whether the arrest was witnessed or not, and those cases where LUCAS was not brought to the scene at the first instance. RESULTS: After exclusion from the 2589 patients within the ITT-population, the Per-Protocol analysis was performed in 2370 patients and the Pre-Defined analysis within 1133 patients. There was no significant difference in 4-h survival of patients between the mechanical-CPR group and the manual-CPR group in the Per-Protocol population; 279 of 1172 patients (23.8%) versus 281 of 1198 patients (23.5%) (risk difference -0.35%, 95% C.I. -3.1 to 3.8, p=0.85) or in the Pre-Defined population; 176 of 567 patients (31.0%) versus 192 of 566 patients (33.9%) (risk difference -2.88%, 95% C.I. -8.3 to 2.6, p=0.31). There was no difference in any of the second outcome variables analyzed in the Pre-Protocol or Pre-Defined populations. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these predefined sub-group analyses of the LINC study population did not show any difference in 4h survival or in secondary outcome variables between patients treated with mechanical-CPR or manual-CPR. This is consistent with the previously published ITT analysis.

Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the LINC randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome. RESULTS: Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00609778.

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.

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). 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.