Trial reportSingapore medical journal2017
Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report.
Trial report in Singapore medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 4. Adult advanced life support.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- Development a clinical prediction model of the neurological outcome for patients with coma and survived 24 hours after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Clinical cardiology · 2020Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of the resuscitative effects of mechanical and manual chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Singapore Advanced Cardiac Life Support Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- Mechanical versus manual chest compression in cardiac arrest: a systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Optimal Fluoroscopic Angles for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention During Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Cardiac Arrest Patients.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy of mechanical against manual method in cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest: A meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2024Article
- Early prehospital mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation use for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Post Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- The short- and mid-term mortality trends in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: insights from a 5-year multicenter retrospective study in Taiwan.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Development of prehospital emergency care in Singapore.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Use of Mechanical Chest Compression for Resuscitation in Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest-Device Matters: A Propensity-Score-Based Match Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Advanced and Invasive Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Techniques as an Adjunct to Advanced Cardiac Life Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- [Add-on-LUCAS2™ resuscitation at NEF Innsbruck].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2022Article
- Comparison between Prehospital Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Devices and Manual CPR for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Article
- An essential review of Singapore's response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: improvements over a ten-year period.Singapore medical journal · 2021Review
- Singapore Advanced Cardiac Life Support Guidelines 2021.Singapore medical journal · 2021Article
- Corpuls CPR Generates Higher Mean Arterial Pressure Than LUCAS II in a Pig Model of Cardiac Arrest.BioMed research international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) may improve survival outcomes. Current evidence for such devices uses outcomes from an intention-to-treat (ITT) perspective. We aimed to determine whether early use of mechanical CPR using a LUCAS 2 device results in better outcomes.
methodsA prospective, randomised, multicentre study was conducted over one year with LUCAS 2 devices in 14 ambulances and manual CPR in 32 ambulances to manage OHCA. The primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were survival at 24 hours, discharge from hospital and 30 days.
resultsOf the 1,274 patients recruited, 1,191 were eligible for analysis. 889 had manual CPR and 302 had LUCAS CPR. From an ITT perspective, outcomes for manual and LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 29.2% and 31.1% (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.45; p = 0.537); 24-hour survival 11.2% and 13.2% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81-1.78; p = 0.352); survival to discharge 3.6% and 4.3% (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.62-2.33; p = 0.579); and 30-day survival 3.0% and 4.0% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.66-2.64; p = 0.430), respectively. By as-treated analysis, outcomes for manual, early LUCAS and late LUCAS CPR were: ROSC 28.0%, 36.9% and 24.5%; 24-hour survival 10.6%, 15.5% and 8.2%; survival to discharge 2.9%, 5.8% and 2.0%; and 30-day survival 2.4%, 5.8% and 0.0%, respectively. Adjusted OR for survival with early LUCAS vs. manual CPR was 1.47 after adjustment for other variables (p = 0.026).
conclusionThis study showed a survival benefit with LUCAS CPR as compared to manual CPR only, when the device was applied early on-site.
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.