• David Smekal, Jakob Johansson, Tibor Huzevka, and Sten Rubertsson.
• Department of Surgical Sciences - Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Uppsala University, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. dsmekal@gmail.com
• Resuscitation. 2011 Jun 1;82(6):702-6.

AimThe 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsAfter 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.ConclusionsIn 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.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…