Cure My Disease

Don't miss your cure!

 Log in / Sign up

Front-Back vs. Front-Side: which defibrillator pad placement saves more lives?

NCT ID NCT07818785

Symptom relief Sponsor: Oregon Health and Science University Source: ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

What the study statuses mean

This study's is highlighted.

Recruitment status, easiest to join first

Recruiting now
This trial is taking on new participants right now.
Not yet recruiting This study
Registered, but not yet taking participants.
By invitation only
Not open to general applications. Only people the study team invites can take part.
Paused
Paused for now. It may or may not start again.
Ongoing
Running, but no longer taking on new participants.
Completed
The trial has finished. Results may not be published yet.
Stopped early
Stopped early, before it reached the end. That can be for many reasons, including safety.
Cancelled
Cancelled before anyone took part.

Expanded access (not trials)

Expanded access
Not a trial. This treatment can be requested outside a study, case by case, for people who qualify.
Expanded access (paused)
Not a trial. The treatment can normally be requested outside a study, but is unavailable right now.
Expanded access (ended)
Not a trial. The treatment could once be requested outside a study, but no longer can.
Approved
The treatment has been approved, so it is available normally rather than through this programme.

When the status isn't known

Details not published
The full record has not been published yet, so there is little to show here.
Status unknown
This status has not been confirmed recently, so it may be out of date.

First seen Sep 14, 2026 · Last updated Sep 15, 2026 · Updated 1 time

Summary

Emergency medical services teams use defibrillator pads to shock the heart during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The VECTORS trial compares two standard pad placements: one with pads on the front and back of the chest, and one with pads on the front and side. Researchers will track whether a pulse returns after the first shock, along with timing and number of shocks, in about 1,500 patients. The goal is to learn whether one placement works better than the other.

What this could mean

Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only, not medical advice or a prediction.

Active substance
defibrillator electrode pads
What this could lead to
If one pad placement proves more effective, it could change emergency response protocols and improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
What could go wrong
This is a pragmatic trial comparing two standard approaches, so the difference between them may be small or hard to detect. Results might not apply to all emergency settings.

This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.

Study facts

What this study's own registry entry says, in plain language.

Phase

Not a phased trial

Phase numbers describe drug development. The registry uses this when they do not apply, as it does for trials of devices, procedures or behaviour changes, and for observational studies.

Participants

About 1,500 people

The number the study aims to enrol. It can still change while the study runs.

Expected to start

Apr 2027

An estimate. Start dates often move.

Expected to finish

Dec 2029

An estimate. End dates often move.

Lead sponsor

Other sponsor

The registry's catch-all category, for sponsors it does not file as a company, a government agency, or a research network.

Who can take part

This study's own entry requirements. Only the study team can say for certain whether you qualify.

Ages

18 years and older

Sex

Anyone

Healthy volunteers

Not accepted

This study is not open to healthy volunteers. The entry requirements below say who it is open to.

Show the full entry requirements

Copied word for word from the study's registry entry, so the wording is the study team's rather than ours.

Inclusion Criteria: * Emergency medical services (EMS)-treated non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest Exclusion Criteria: * ROSC at EMS arrival (e.g., bystander AED shock with ROSC prior to EMS care) without rearrest during EMS care * Known prisoners * Known pregnant patients * Known pediatric patients (treated under the pediatric algorithm, generally \<15 years) * Known preexisting do-not-resuscitate orders limiting care

Get updates

Get notified about this study

Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for Cardiac arrest (CA) are added.

Our safety recommendation!

By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use

Conditions

The condition(s) this trial relates to.

cardiac arrest

As listed by the trial registrant

The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.

Cardiac arrest (CA)

How to take part

Only the study team decides who joins. These are the ways to reach them.

  1. The official record

    ClinicalTrials.gov lists the study team's own contact details, including names and phone numbers. We don't republish those.

    Open the record ↗

  2. A doctor treating you

    A doctor who knows your case can contact a study site on your behalf, and can tell you whether this study is worth pursuing at all.

More trials for these conditions

Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.