• Sten Rubertsson and Rolf Karlsten.
• Department of Surgical Sciences, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Uppsala University Hospital, S-75185 Uppsala, Sweden. sten.rubertsson@akademiska.se
• Resuscitation. 2005 Jun 1;65(3):357-63.

ObjectiveLUCAS is a new device for mechanical compression and decompression of the chest during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of this new device with standard manual external chest compressions using cerebral cortical blood flow, cerebral oxygen extraction, and end-tidal CO2 for indirect measurement of cardiac output. Drug therapy, with adrenaline (epinephrine) was eliminated in order to evaluate the effects of chest compressions alone.MethodsVentricular fibrillation (VF) was induced in 14 anaesthetized pigs. After 8 min non-intervention interval, the animals were randomized into two groups. One group received external chest compressions using a new mechanical device, LUCAS. The other group received standard manual external chest compressions. The compression rate was 100 min(-1) and mechanical ventilation was resumed with 100% oxygen during CPR in both groups. No adrenaline was given. After 15 min of CPR, external defibrillatory shocks were applied to achieve restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Cortical cerebral blood flow was measured continuously using Laser-Doppler flowmetry. End-tidal CO2 was measured using mainstream capnography.ResultsDuring CPR, the cortical cerebral blood flow was significantly higher in the group treated with LUCAS (p = 0.041). There was no difference in oxygen extraction between the groups. End-tidal CO2, an indirect measurement of the achieved cardiac output during CPR, was significantly higher in the group treated with the LUCAS device (p = 0.009). Restoration of spontaneous circulation was achieved in two animals, one from each group.ConclusionsChest compressions with the LUCAS device during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation resulted in higher cerebral blood flow and cardiac output than standard manual external chest compressions. These results strongly support prospective randomised studies in patients to evaluate this new device.

13 keywords...

hide…