ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2015
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation using electrically driven devices: a review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute clinical adverse events associated with the LUCAS chest compression system.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Assessing the Impact of the Pandemic on Treatment Outcomes for Cardiac Arrest Patients Utilizing Mechanical CPR: A Nationwide Population-Based Observational Study in South Korea.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Blood flow maintenance by cardiac massage during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Classical theories, newer hypotheses, and clinical utility of mechanical devices.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2019Review
- Unexpected collateral impact after out of hospital resuscitation using LUCAS system.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2017Article
- Corpuls CPR Generates Higher Mean Arterial Pressure Than LUCAS II in a Pig Model of Cardiac Arrest.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Is increased positive end-expiratory pressure the culprit? Autoresuscitation in a 44-year-old man after prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2016Article
- A Single-center Experience of Kidney Transplantation from Donation after Circulatory Death: Challenges and Scope in India.Indian journal of nephrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the treatment of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) immediate resuscitation with chest compressions and ventilation is crucial for survival. As manual resuscitation is associated with several drawbacks, mechanical resuscitation devices have been developed to support resuscitation teams. These devices are able to achieve better perfusion of heart and brain in laboratory settings, but real world experience showed no significant improved survival in comparison to manual resuscitation. This review will focus on two mechanical resuscitation devices, the Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS) and AutoPulse devices and the actual literature available. In conclusion, the general use of mechanical resuscitation devices cannot be recommended at the moment.
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.