Trial reportEuropean heart journal2017
Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 7 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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 2025 Korean Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Part 4. Adult advanced life support.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2026Guideline
- Pooled it
- Rib fractures and other injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for non-traumatic cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients: A proportional prevalence meta-analysis.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mechanical Chest Compression Devices over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during spaceflight - a guideline for CPR in microgravity from the German Society of Aerospace Medicine (DGLRM) and the European Society of Aerospace Medicine Space Medicine Group (ESAM-SMG).Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Guideline
- Mechanical versus manual chest compressions for cardiac arrest.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes and safety of passive leg raising in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Trial
- Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial.Cardiology journal · 2020Trial
- Mechanical and manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation in traumatic cardiac arrest: a retrospective observational study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Observational
- Mechanical versus manual chest compression in cardiac arrest: a systematic review.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Risk factors for chest trauma associated with prehospital mechanical chest compression after non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a South Korean regional registry.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Injury Patterns in Resuscitated Non-Traumatic Cardiac Arrest Patients-A Comparative CT Analysis Between Automated Chest Compression Devices.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Acute clinical adverse events associated with the LUCAS chest compression system.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Early Risk Stratification of Patients After Successfully Resuscitated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation-The Angiography After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation (TOMAHAWK) Risk Score.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Mechanical chest compression increases intrathoracic hemorrhage complications in patients receiving extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.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
- Post-resuscitation pneumothorax: retrospective analysis of incidence, risk factors and outcome-relevance.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Article
- Study of risk factors for injuries due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation with special focus on the role of the heart: A machine learning analysis of a prospective registry with multiple sources of information (ReCaPTa Study).Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMechanical chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with AutoPulse or LUCAS devices has not improved survival from cardiac arrest. Cohort studies suggest risk of excess damage. We studied safety of mechanical CC and determined possible excess damage compared with manual CC. METHODS AND
resultsThis is a randomized non-inferiority safety study. Randomization to AutoPulse, LUCAS, or manual CC with corrective depth and rate feedback was performed. We included patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest arriving with manual CPR at the emergency department. The primary outcome was serious or life-threatening visceral resuscitation-related damage, assessed blind by post-mortem computed tomography scan and/or autopsy or by clinical course until discharge. Non-inferiority hypothesis: mechanical CC compared with manual control does not increase the primary outcome by a risk difference of > 10% [upper 95% confidence interval (CI)]. We included 115 patients treated with AutoPulse, 122 with LUCAS, and 137 patients received manual CC. Safety outcome analysis was possible in 337 of 374 (90.1%) included patients. The primary outcome was observed in 12 of 103 AutoPulse patients (11.6%), 8 of 108 LUCAS patients (7.4%), and 8 of 126 controls (6.4%). Rate difference AutoPulse-control: +5.3% (95% CI - 2.2% to 12.8%), P = 0.15. Rate difference LUCAS-control +1.0% (95% CI - 5.5% to 7.6%), P = 0.75.
conclusionLUCAS does not cause significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC. For AutoPulse, significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC cannot be excluded.
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.