Outcomes of LUCAS Machine vs. Manual Compression in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a critical intervention for cardiac arrest. Mechanical chest compression devices, such as the LUCAS machine, have emerged as an alternative to manual CPR. The comparative effectiveness of these methods on patient outcomes remains unclear.
Objective: To systematically evaluate the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of LUCAS machine-assisted CPR compared to manual CPR in improving patient outcomes.
Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted to identify studies comparing LUCAS machine-assisted CPR to manual CPR.
Results: Our data includes eleven articles with 3597 participants, 2146 (59.7%) of whom were males. Five studies reported that the outcomes of manual and mechanical CPR using LUCAS were comparable with no significant difference in the sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) rates. Three studies recorded that mechanical high-quality CPR delivery is preferable to human high-quality CPR delivery and it also enhances the quality of CPR during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation by considerably lowering the no-flow fraction and by producing better chest compressions than manual CPR. Using LUCAS mechanical CPR was associated with worse survival at discharge, a higher number of pericardial injuries, greater risk of airway hemorrhage, and rib fractures than manual CPR.
Conclusion: The majority of the study's trials did not show that CPR administered via LUCAS was any more successful than CPR administered manually. Nonetheless, improvements in clinical research and technology, along with a deeper comprehension of the organizational consequences of their application, are continuously enhancing the efficacy of these tools.
Letters in High Energy Physics (LHEP) is an open access journal. The articles in LHEP are distributed according to the terms of the creative commons license CC-BY 4.0. Under the terms of this license, copyright is retained by the author while use, distribution and reproduction in any medium are permitted provided proper credit is given to original authors and sources.
Terms of Submission
By submitting an article for publication in LHEP, the submitting author asserts that:
1. The article presents original contributions by the author(s) which have not been published previously in a peer-reviewed medium and are not subject to copyright protection.
2. The co-authors of the article, if any, as well as any institution whose approval is required, agree to the publication of the article in LHEP.
