Aim: The 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.
Methods: In 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.
Results: After 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.
Conclusions: In 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.