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

Gyory, Robert Aaron; Buchle, Scott; Rodgers, David L.; Lubin, Jeffrey

doi:10.5811/westjem.2017.1.32575

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, chest compressions were interrupted to set up the device for 10. 66 carried out a similar study, with similar results, although the focus was on the prehospital phase of the intervention. They simulated the transportation of a patient from the second floor of a building to the hospital, providing manual or mechanical CPR all the time.…”

Section: The Situational Factorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Automatic and manual devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A review

Remino

Baronio

Pellegrini

et al. 2018

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rate of survival without any neurological consequence after cardiac arrest is driven not only by early recognition but also by high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Because the effectiveness of the manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is usually impaired by rescuers' fatigue, devices have been devised to improve it by appliances or ergonomic solutions. However, some devices are thought to replace the manual resuscitation altogether, either mimicking its action or generating hemodynamic effects with working principles which are entirely different. This article reviews such devices, both manual and automatic. They are mainly classified by actuation method, applied force, working space, and positioning time. Most of the trials and meta-analyses have not demonstrated that chest compressions given with automatic devices are more effective than those given manually. However, advances in clinical research and technology, with an improved understanding of the organizational implications of their use, are constantly improving the effectiveness of such devices.

show abstract

Section: The Situational Factorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Automatic and manual devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A review

Remino

Baronio

Pellegrini

et al. 2018

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mechanical CPR was found to result in a higher percentage of compressions with adequate depth (LUCAS 52% vs. manual 36%, p < 0.07) and rate (LUCAS 71% vs. manual 40%, p < 0.02) during the overall transport. A separate analysis of the phase of evacuation through the staircase is not available [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial

Drinhaus

Nüsgen²,

Adams

et al. 2020

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: If transport under ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from an upper floor is indicated, the ideal CPR-method and evacuation route is unknown hitherto. We aimed to elaborate a strategy for evacuation of patients under ongoing CPR from an upper floor, comparing three different evacuation routes and manual and mechanical chest compressions. Methods: A CPR-training manikin recording CPR-quality was placed on the fifth floor and was evacuated to an ambulance via lift, turntable ladder, or staircase. Chest compressions were performed manually or with a mechanical CPR-device. Efficiency endpoints were compression depth and frequency, sufficiency of chest release, compared with European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines, and duration of the evacuation. Adverse outcomes were disconnection/dislocation of devices and hazards/accidents to the personnel.Results: For all evacuation routes, compression depth and frequency were significantly more compliant with ERCguidelines under mechanical CPR. Manual CPR was associated with considerable deviations from correct compression depth and frequency. Chest release only slightly differed between groups. Evacuation via lift under mechanical CPR was fastest and evacuation via turntable ladder under manual CPR was slowest. No device disconnections or accidents occurred, but hazard to personnel was perceived during evacuation via ladder under manual CPR. Conclusions:In this study, a mechanical CPR-device proved to deliver better CPR-quality during evacuation from an upper floor. If a lift accessible with a stretcher is available, this route should be preferred, regardless of manual or mechanical CPR. Turntable ladders can only be meaningfully used with mechanical CPR, otherwise CPR-quality is poor and hazard to the personnel is increased. Not all evacuation routes may be useable in a specific real-life scenario.

show abstract

“…11 In two different studies, the compression application difference between EMS professionals and two different automated-CPR devices was evaluated, and the compression depth provided by automated-CPR devices was found to be more appropriate than those of paramedics. 12,13 We believe that the paramedics achieved a lower depth of compression because the ambulance was not a stable environment. The driving track of our study included harsh conditions that required stop-and-go, reverse maneuvers, slalom, and the paramedics were jarred by skidding in the ambulance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manual CPR Vs Mechanical CPR: Which One Is More Effective During Ambulance Transport?

Şan

Bekgöz

Ergin

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We aimed to evaluate and compare the qualities of chest compressions performed manually by healthcare professionals and by a mechanical chest compression device on a training model during an ambulance transfer. DesignThis is an experimental trial. Setting This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara City (Capital of Turkey). 20 (10 male and 10 female) paramedic participated the study. We used LUCAS 2 as mechanical chest compression device in the study. A total of 40 rounds were driven on the track; in that moving ambulance, the model was applied chest compression in 20 rounds by paramedics, while in 20 rounds were applied by mechanical chest compression device. The depth, rate and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system. Results The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (IQR 25–75%=117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR 25–75%=102.1–102.7) (p<0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 millimeters (IQR 25–75%=32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 millimeters for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR 25–75%=51.8–55.0) (p<0.001). The median hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 6.9% (IQR 25–75=5.0–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% (IQR 25–75%=8.2–12.5%) (p=0.09). Conclusion Chest compressions performed by the mechanical chest compression device were found to be within the range recommended by the guidelines in terms of both speed and duration.

show abstract

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

Cited by 26 publications

References 32 publications

Automatic and manual devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A review

Automatic and manual devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A review

Rescue under ongoing CPR from an upper floor: evaluation of three different evacuation routes and mechanical and manual chest compressions: a manikin trial

Manual CPR Vs Mechanical CPR: Which One Is More Effective During Ambulance Transport?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About