ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Acute clinical adverse events associated with the LUCAS chest compression system.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) devices, such as the Lund University Cardiac Assist System (LUCAS), were developed to reduce variability in the quality of chest compressions and improve outcomes of cardiac arrest. With increasing adoption of mechanical CPR devices, understanding the nature and frequency of device-related complications is critical to ensuring patient safety. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of all adverse events involving the LUCAS 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0 and 3.1 devices from 2015 to 2024 Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) maintained by the US Food and Drug -Administration. Reports were manually reviewed, categorized by device subtype, and further stratified by type of complication. Events were grouped into device- or patient-related categories to identify trends and potential causes. Results: A total of 255 adverse events were reported, with an increase from 12 events in 2015 to 33 in 2024. Most events were associated with LUCAS 1.0 (50.2 %) and LUCAS 2.0 (27.1 %). The most frequent device-related issues involved device defect (53.7 %) and power failure (26.7 %). Patient-related complications included soft tissue injury (22.0 %), internal organ injury (20.4 %), and chest compression interruption (13.7 %). Malfunctions such as abrupt stoppage, loss of suction, or misalignment were frequently noted as contributing factors. Conclusion: Reported adverse events associated with LUCAS use include device malfunction and deployment issues, with serious patient harm including death or organ injury, in some cases. As mechanical CPR becomes more widely adopted, knowledge of the most common complications can inform operator training and potential mitigating strategies to minimize adverse outcomes.
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.