A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(2011) In Resuscitation 82(6). p.6-702- Abstract
AIM: The LUCAS™ device has been shown to improve organ perfusion during cardiac arrest in experimental studies. In this pilot study the aim was to compare short-term survival between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed with mechanical chest compressions using the LUCAS™ device and CPR performed with manual chest compressions. The intention was to use the results for power calculation in a larger randomised multicentre trial.
METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, from February 1, 2005, to April 1, 2007, 149 patients with out-of hospital cardiac arrest in two Swedish cities were randomised to mechanical chest compressions or standard CPR with manual chest compressions.
RESULTS: After exclusion, the LUCAS and the... (More)
AIM: The LUCAS™ device has been shown to improve organ perfusion during cardiac arrest in experimental studies. In this pilot study the aim was to compare short-term survival between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed with mechanical chest compressions using the LUCAS™ device and CPR performed with manual chest compressions. The intention was to use the results for power calculation in a larger randomised multicentre trial.
METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, from February 1, 2005, to April 1, 2007, 149 patients with out-of hospital cardiac arrest in two Swedish cities were randomised to mechanical chest compressions or standard CPR with manual chest compressions.
RESULTS: After exclusion, the LUCAS and the manual groups contained 75 and 73 patients, respectively. In the LUCAS and manual groups, spontaneous circulation with a palpable pulse returned in 30 and 23 patients (p = 0.30), spontaneous circulation with blood pressure above 80/50 mm Hg remained for at least 5 min in 23 and 19 patients (p = 0.59), the number of patients hospitalised alive >4h were 18 and 15 (p = 0.69), and the number discharged, alive 6 and 7 (p = 0.78), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients we found no difference in early survival between CPR performed with mechanical chest compression with the LUCAS™ device and CPR with manual chest compressions. Data have been used for power calculation in a forthcoming multicentre trial.
(Less)
- author
- Smekal, David ; Johansson, Jakob ; Huzevka, Tibor LU and Rubertsson, Sten
- publishing date
- 2011-06
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Aged, Algorithms, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/instrumentation, Female, Humans, Male, Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies
- in
- Resuscitation
- volume
- 82
- issue
- 6
- pages
- 5 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:21419560
- scopus:79956106363
- ISSN
- 1873-1570
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.032
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- additional info
- Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
- id
- 00d5d58e-f976-4d86-a3f5-66fd7e6f0dbd
- date added to LUP
- 2023-09-14 10:06:08
- date last changed
- 2025-10-14 11:11:47
@article{00d5d58e-f976-4d86-a3f5-66fd7e6f0dbd,
abstract = {{<p>AIM: The LUCAS™ device has been shown to improve organ perfusion during cardiac arrest in experimental studies. In this pilot study the aim was to compare short-term survival between cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed with mechanical chest compressions using the LUCAS™ device and CPR performed with manual chest compressions. The intention was to use the results for power calculation in a larger randomised multicentre trial.</p><p>METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, from February 1, 2005, to April 1, 2007, 149 patients with out-of hospital cardiac arrest in two Swedish cities were randomised to mechanical chest compressions or standard CPR with manual chest compressions.</p><p>RESULTS: After exclusion, the LUCAS and the manual groups contained 75 and 73 patients, respectively. In the LUCAS and manual groups, spontaneous circulation with a palpable pulse returned in 30 and 23 patients (p = 0.30), spontaneous circulation with blood pressure above 80/50 mm Hg remained for at least 5 min in 23 and 19 patients (p = 0.59), the number of patients hospitalised alive >4h were 18 and 15 (p = 0.69), and the number discharged, alive 6 and 7 (p = 0.78), respectively.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients we found no difference in early survival between CPR performed with mechanical chest compression with the LUCAS™ device and CPR with manual chest compressions. Data have been used for power calculation in a forthcoming multicentre trial.</p>}},
author = {{Smekal, David and Johansson, Jakob and Huzevka, Tibor and Rubertsson, Sten}},
issn = {{1873-1570}},
keywords = {{Aged; Algorithms; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/instrumentation; Female; Humans; Male; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{6}},
pages = {{6--702}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Resuscitation}},
title = {{A pilot study of mechanical chest compressions with the LUCAS™ device in cardiopulmonary resuscitation}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.032}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.032}},
volume = {{82}},
year = {{2011}},
}