Implementation of a mechanical compression device as standard equipment in a large, urban ambulance system

Satterlee, Paul A.; Boland, Lori L.; Johnson, P.; Hagstrom, S.G.; Page, David; Lick, Charles

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.09.256

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, this process is critical as it allows for a continued maintenance of adequate perfusion pressure to the patient’s brain, heart, and other tissues and does not lead to a loss of that pressure. Most importantly for the EMS system, LUCAS has been shown to be a safe device to employ when on a moving vehicle during emergency transport and has also been shown to be more efficient and effective than manual CPR both in the field and during emergency medical transport, leading to better patient outcomes 26–34…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study

Gyory¹,

Buchle²,

Rodgers³

et al. 2017

WestJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHigh-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical for successful cardiac arrest outcomes. Mechanical devices may improve CPR quality. We simulated a prehospital cardiac arrest, including patient transport, and compared the performance of the LUCAS™ device, a mechanical chest compression-decompression system, to manual CPR. We hypothesized that because of the movement involved in transporting the patient, LUCAS would provide chest compressions more consistent with high-quality CPR guidelines.MethodsWe performed a crossover-controlled study in which a recording mannequin was placed on the second floor of a building. An emergency medical services (EMS) crew responded, defibrillated, and provided either manual or LUCAS CPR. The team transported the mannequin through hallways and down stairs to an ambulance and drove to the hospital with CPR in progress. Critical events were manually timed while the mannequin recorded data on compressions.ResultsTwenty-three EMS providers participated. Median time to defibrillation was not different for LUCAS compared to manual CPR (p=0.97). LUCAS had a lower median number of compressions per minute (112/min vs. 125/min; IQR = 102–128 and 102–126 respectively; p<0.002), which was more consistent with current American Heart Association CPR guidelines, and percent adequate compression rate (71% vs. 40%; IQR = 21–93 and 12–88 respectively; p<0.002). In addition, LUCAS had a higher percent adequate depth (52% vs. 36%; IQR = 25–64 and 29–39 respectively; p<0.007) and lower percent total hands-off time (15% vs. 20%; IQR = 10–22 and 15–27 respectively; p<0.005). LUCAS performed no differently than manual CPR in median compression release depth, percent fully released compressions, median time hands off, or percent correct hand position.ConclusionIn our simulation, LUCAS had a higher rate of adequate compressions and decreased total hands-off time as compared to manual CPR. Chest compression quality may be better when using a mechanical device during patient movement in prehospital cardiac arrest patient.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most importantly for the EMS system, LUCAS has been shown to be a safe device to employ when on a moving vehicle during emergency transport and has also been shown to be more efficient and effective than manual CPR both in the field and during emergency medical transport, leading to better patient outcomes. 26 – 34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%