Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2015
Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest before and after introduction of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS-2; a prospective, observational study.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial.Cardiology journal · 2020Trial
- Current animal models of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- Selection of patients for mechanical circulatory support for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2023Article
- Observational
- Suction cup on a piston-based chest compression device improves coronary perfusion pressure and cerebral oxygenation during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
- Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Comparison of in-hospital use of mechanical chest compression devices for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: AUTOPULSE vs LUCAS.Medicine · 2019Observational
- Observational
- Cardiovascular risk factors differently affect the survival of patients undergoing manual or mechanical resuscitation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
- Chest compression-associated injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions versus automated chest compression devices (LUCAS II) - a forensic autopsy-based comparison.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2018Article
- Corpuls CPR Generates Higher Mean Arterial Pressure Than LUCAS II in a Pig Model of Cardiac Arrest.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Article
- Ruptured subcapsular liver haematoma following mechanically-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation.BMJ case reports · 2016Article
- Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical chest compressions have been proposed to provide high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite the growing use of mechanical chest compression devices, only few studies have addressed their impact on CPR quality. This study aims to evaluate mechanical chest compressions provided by LUCAS-2 (Lund University Cardiac Assist System) compared with manual chest compression in a cohort of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases.
methodsIn this prospective study conducted in the Central Denmark Region, Denmark, the emergency medical service attempted resuscitation and reported data on 696 non-traumatic OHCA patients between April 2011 and February 2013. Of these, 155 were treated with LUCAS CPR after an episode with manual CPR. The CPR quality was evaluated using transthoracic impedance measurements collected from the LIFEPAK 12 defibrillator, and the effect was assessed in terms of chest compression rate, no-flow time and no-flow fraction; the fraction of time during resuscitation in which the patient is without spontaneous circulation receiving no chest compression.
resultsThe median total episode duration was 21 minutes, and the episode with LUCAS CPR was significantly longer than the manual CPR episode, 13 minutes vs. 5 minutes, p < 0.001. The no-flow fraction was significantly lower during LUCAS CPR (16%) than during manual CPR (35%); difference 19% (95% CI: 16% to 21%; p < 0.001). No differences were found in pre- and post-shock no-flow time throughout manual CPR and LUCAS CPR. Contrary to the manual CPR, the average compression rate during LUCAS CPR was in conformity with the current Guidelines for Resuscitation, 102/minute vs. 124/minute, p < 0.001.
conclusionMechanical chest compressions provided by the LUCAS device improve CPR quality by significantly reducing the NFF and by improving the quality of chest compression compared with manual CPR during OHCA resuscitation. However, data on end-tidal Co2 and chest compression depth surrogate parameters of CPR quality could not be reported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.