Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2017
The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study.
Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Manual versus Mechanical Delivery of High-Quality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on a River-Based Fire Rescue Boat.Prehospital and disaster medicine · 2022Trial
- Acute clinical adverse events associated with the LUCAS chest compression system.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Complication frequency of mechanical chest compression devices: A single-center, blinded study using retrospective data.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Prognostic influence of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation on survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest undergoing ECPR on VA-ECMO.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Mathematical Model of Blood Circulation with Compression of the Prototype's Mechanical CPR Waveform.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Suction cup on a piston-based chest compression device improves coronary perfusion pressure and cerebral oxygenation during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2022Article
- Article
- Out of hospital cardiac arrest in Western Sydney-an analysis of outcomes and estimation of future eCPR eligibility.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Observational
- Efficacy of AutoPulse for Mechanical Chest Compression in Patients with Shock-Resistant Ventricular Fibrillation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- Shoulder strap fixation of LUCAS-2 to facilitate continuous CPR during non-supine (stair) stretcher transport of OHCAs patients.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Effect of Implementing Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Devices on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients in an Urban City of Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Impact of automatic chest compression devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- 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
- The Development of Innovative Handheld Devices to Augment Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Therapy and External Cardioversion and Defibrillation.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2017Review
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHigh-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical for successful cardiac arrest outcomes. Mechanical devices may improve CPR quality. We simulated a prehospital cardiac arrest, including patient transport, and compared the performance of the LUCAS™ device, a mechanical chest compression-decompression system, to manual CPR. We hypothesized that because of the movement involved in transporting the patient, LUCAS would provide chest compressions more consistent with high-quality CPR guidelines.
methodsWe performed a crossover-controlled study in which a recording mannequin was placed on the second floor of a building. An emergency medical services (EMS) crew responded, defibrillated, and provided either manual or LUCAS CPR. The team transported the mannequin through hallways and down stairs to an ambulance and drove to the hospital with CPR in progress. Critical events were manually timed while the mannequin recorded data on compressions.
resultsTwenty-three EMS providers participated. Median time to defibrillation was not different for LUCAS compared to manual CPR (p=0.97). LUCAS had a lower median number of compressions per minute (112/min vs. 125/min; IQR = 102-128 and 102-126 respectively; p<0.002), which was more consistent with current American Heart Association CPR guidelines, and percent adequate compression rate (71% vs. 40%; IQR = 21-93 and 12-88 respectively; p<0.002). In addition, LUCAS had a higher percent adequate depth (52% vs. 36%; IQR = 25-64 and 29-39 respectively; p<0.007) and lower percent total hands-off time (15% vs. 20%; IQR = 10-22 and 15-27 respectively; p<0.005). LUCAS performed no differently than manual CPR in median compression release depth, percent fully released compressions, median time hands off, or percent correct hand position.
conclusionIn our simulation, LUCAS had a higher rate of adequate compressions and decreased total hands-off time as compared to manual CPR. Chest compression quality may be better when using a mechanical device during patient movement in prehospital cardiac arrest patient.
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.