ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Complication frequency of mechanical chest compression devices: A single-center, blinded study using retrospective data.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanical versus manual chest compressions during ECPR in the catheterization laboratory.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Injury Patterns in Resuscitated Non-Traumatic Cardiac Arrest Patients-A Comparative CT Analysis Between Automated Chest Compression Devices.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Management of Hypothermic Cardiac Arrest with Hemoperitoneum from LUCAS Device: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Left Main PCI During Cardiac Arrest With Ongoing Lucas CPR.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Use of mechanical chest compression devices for patients with cardiac arrest is increasing. As cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) guidelines and LUCAS are updated, the evidence requires updating. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study observed adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving CPR from emergency services. Patients were assigned to LUCAS or manual CPR groups, matched by propensity score, and evaluated through computed tomography images by a radiologist blinded to their data. The primary outcome was complications from chest compressions, and logistic regression was used to analyze their risk factors. Results: Overall, 261 patients were selected and divided into manual and LUCAS groups (n = 69 each). The manual CPR group exhibited higher witnessed cardiac arrest percentages (p = 0.023) and shorter times from scene to emergency department (p = 0.001) and total CPR duration (p = 0.002), versus the LUCAS group. Complication rates showed no significant intergroup differences in overall CPR complications (p = 0.462); however, the LUCAS group reported more hemothorax incidents (p = 0.028), versus the manual group. Logistic regression indicated that female sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.743, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.333-10.506), older age (OR 1.089, 95 % CI 1.048-1.132), and longer CPR durations (OR 1.045, 95 % CI 1.006-1.085) significantly correlated with compression complications, whereas LUCAS use did not (OR 0.713, 95 % CI 0.304-1.673). Conclusion: No association was observed between LUCAS use and the overall incidence of chest compression complications in adults with OHCA. LUCAS is associated with more hemothorax cases and longer transport time, versus manual CPR. Evaluating LUCAS's benefits necessitates multiple perspectives and further research.
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.