LUCAS 2TM device, compression depth, and the 2010 cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines

Trivedi, Kovid; Borovnik-Lesjak, Vesna; Gazmuri, Raúl J

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2013.03.007

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, mechanical chest compression has also been linked to poorer hemodynamic efficacy, as denoted by suboptimal values of pet CO 2 and aortic pressures, which improved after switching to manual compression. [37] There have been various studies conducted in the past that align with the results of this systematic review and metaanalysis. In a meta-analysis conducted by Zhu et al, both observational and RCTs did not demonstrate any significant differences between mechanical and manual compression for ROSC, survival to discharge, and favorable neurological outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Larik,

Ahmed,

Shiraz

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate intervention to increase the prospect of survival. There are various ways to achieve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in such patients, either through manual chest compression or mechanical chest compression. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the differences between these interventions. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were explored from inception to May 2023. Additionally, the bibliographies of relevant studies were searched. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-I tools were utilized to perform quality and risk of bias assessments. Results: There were 24 studies included within this quantitative synthesis, featuring a total of 111,681 cardiac arrest patients. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed between the return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, short-term survival, and long-term survival. However, manual chest compression was associated with a significantly superior favorability of neurological outcomes (OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.84; P = .01). Conclusion: Although there were no major differences between the strategies, the poorer post-resuscitation neurological outcomes observed in mechanical chest compression indicate the need for further innovation and advancements within the current array of mechanical devices. However, future high-quality studies are necessary in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Larik,

Ahmed,

Shiraz

et al. 2024

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since that time, multiple devices were developed to enhance the effectiveness of CPR [18][19][20]. These include both automatic chest compression devices such as LUCAS 2™ [21] and AutoPulse™ [22], devices that still require manual chest compressions by the rescuer but provide feedback information on compression rate and depth, the degree of chest relaxation, or appropriate timing of rescue breaths [23], and numerous smartphone applications [24].…”

Section: Multivariate Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c tBackground: High effectiveness of chest compressions is an important element of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), improving survival and reducing neurological deficits resulting from sudden cardiac arrest.Aim: Evaluation of the effectiveness of standard manual chest compressions (SMCC) and CPR with the use of two CPR feedback devices: TrueCPR and PocketCPR.Methods: 167 paramedics participated in the study. The participants were randomised to perform SMCC, CPR using the TrueCPR device, and CPR using a smartphone with the PocketCPR application in a crossover fashion. Results:Comparison of SMCC, TrueCPR and PocketCPR showed differences in the effectiveness of chest compressions (40.3%, 85.5% and 28.8%, respectively), compression depth (49.5, 56.5 and 50.3 mm, respectively), and compression rate (118.5, 105.1, and 89.5 min -1 , respectively). Conclusions:During simulated CPR, TrueCPR device significantly increased the effectiveness of chest compressions compared to SMCC and the use of PocketCPR smartphone application. Further studies are required to confirm these findings in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…The compression depth achieved with the LUCAS is lower than the current guideline recommendations which can limit the compression efficacy in some patients 31. The electrically powered LUCAS 2 failed during pretests because of overheating due to waterproof sealed fan apertures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Helicopter-based in-water resuscitation with chest compressions: a pilot study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CPR appears to be possible when performed in a rescue platform with special equipment. The novel helicopter-based strategy appears to enable the rescuers to initiate CPR in an appropriate length of time and with an acceptable amount of physical exertion for the divers. The time for the helicopter to reach the patient will have to be very short to minimise neurological damage in the drowning victim.

show abstract

LUCAS 2TM device, compression depth, and the 2010 cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of manual chest compression versus mechanical chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with standard manual chest compressions and the use of TrueCPR and PocketCPR feedback devices

Helicopter-based in-water resuscitation with chest compressions: a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About