Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Oct 21;38(40):3006-3013.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx318.

Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority

Rudolph W Koster  1 , Ludo F Beenen  2 , Esther B van der Boom  1 , Anje M Spijkerboer  2 , Robert Tepaske  3 , Allart C van der Wal  4 , Stefanie G Beesems  1 , Jan G Tijssen  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority

Rudolph W Koster et al. Eur Heart J. .

Abstract

Aims: Mechanical chest compression (CC) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with AutoPulse or LUCAS devices has not improved survival from cardiac arrest. Cohort studies suggest risk of excess damage. We studied safety of mechanical CC and determined possible excess damage compared with manual CC.

Methods and results: This is a randomized non-inferiority safety study. Randomization to AutoPulse, LUCAS, or manual CC with corrective depth and rate feedback was performed. We included patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest arriving with manual CPR at the emergency department. The primary outcome was serious or life-threatening visceral resuscitation-related damage, assessed blind by post-mortem computed tomography scan and/or autopsy or by clinical course until discharge. Non-inferiority hypothesis: mechanical CC compared with manual control does not increase the primary outcome by a risk difference of > 10% [upper 95% confidence interval (CI)]. We included 115 patients treated with AutoPulse, 122 with LUCAS, and 137 patients received manual CC. Safety outcome analysis was possible in 337 of 374 (90.1%) included patients. The primary outcome was observed in 12 of 103 AutoPulse patients (11.6%), 8 of 108 LUCAS patients (7.4%), and 8 of 126 controls (6.4%). Rate difference AutoPulse-control: +5.3% (95% CI - 2.2% to 12.8%), P = 0.15. Rate difference LUCAS-control +1.0% (95% CI - 5.5% to 7.6%), P = 0.75.

Conclusion: LUCAS does not cause significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC. For AutoPulse, significantly more serious or life-threatening visceral damage than manual CC cannot be excluded.

Keywords: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Chest compressions; Damage; Heart arrest; Mechanical chest compressions; Safety.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart displaying randomization, exclusion, and inclusion. CC, chest compression; ROSC, return of spontaneous circulation; CT, computed tomography.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Rate differences of resuscitation-related serious or life-threatening damage between mechanical chest compressions and manual chest compressions. The dotted line at + 10% indicates the boundary of excess risk difference that should not be exceeded to accept the non-inferiority hypothesis.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Kleinman ME, Brennan EE, Goldberger ZD, Swor RA, Terry M, Bobrow BJ, Gazmuri RJ, Travers AH, Rea T.. Part 5: adult basic life support and cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015;132:S414–S435. - PubMed
    1. Perkins GD, Handley AJ, Koster RW, Castrén M, Smyth MA, Olasveengen T, Monsieurs KG, Raffay V, Gräsner J-T, Wenzel V, Ristagno G, Soar J, Bossaert LL, Caballero A, Cassan P, Granja C, Sandroni C, Zideman DA, Nolan JP, Maconochie I, Greif R.. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 2. Adult basic life support and automated external defibrillation. Resuscitation 2015;95:81–99. - PubMed
    1. Berg RA, Hemphill R, Abella BS, Aufderheide TP, Cave DM, Hazinski MF, Lerner EB, Rea TD, Sayre MR, Swor RA.. Part 5: adult basic life support: 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2010;122:S685–S705. - PubMed
    1. Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, Sørebø H, Svensson L, Fellows B, Steen PA.. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA 2005;293:299–304. - PubMed
    1. Timerman S, Cardoso LF, Ramires JAF, Halperin H.. Improved hemodynamic performance with a novel chest compression device during treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2004;61:273–280. - PubMed

Publication types