Table 1. Overview of relevant publications for the LUCAS device.
| First authors | Year | Study design | Objectives | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steen (26) | 2002 | (I) Experimental; (II) animal testing; (III) pilot study in humans |
Compare the efficacy of LUCAS mechanical resuscitation device with manual compressions | (I) Increased mean pressure and flow in LUCAS group; (II) significantly higher cardiac output, end tidal CO2, carotid blood flow, coronary perfusion pressure in LUCAS group; (III) easy application and use of the device |
LUCAS is superior compared with manual CPR; good application in the clinical pilot study |
| Rubertsson (23) | 2005 | Animal testing | Compare the efficacy of the LUCAS device with standard manual chest compressions using cerebral blood flow, cerebral oxygen extraction and end tidal CO2 | (I) Higher cerebral blood flow in LUCAS group; (II) no difference in cerebral oxygen extraction; (III) higher end tidal CO2 production in LUCAS group |
LUCAS is superior compared with manual CPR |
| Axelsson (27) | 2006 | Descriptive, non-randomized controlled trial | Comparison of LUCAS CPR with manual CPR; primary endpoint: ROSC; secondary endpoint: hospital admission alive | No significant differences for primary and secondary endpoint | LUCAS is not superior compared with manual CPR |
| Axelsson (28) | 2009 | Prospective, cluster level, pseudo-randomized pilot trial | Compare ACD-CPR with standard CPR according to PETCO2 | Mechanical CPR group obtained significantly higher PETCO2 compared to manual CPR group | LUCAS CPR seems to achieve higher cardiac output |
| Rubertsson (29) | 2014 | Multicenter randomized trial | Comparison of LUCAS CPR with defibrillation versus manual CPR; primary objective: 4-h survival; secondary objective: survival up to 6 months, neurological outcome | No significant differences for primary and secondary endpoint between LUCAS CPR and manual CPR | LUCAS is not superior compared with manual CPR |
| Perkins (30) | 2015 | Multicenter randomized controlled trial | Comparison of LUCAS CPR with manual CPR; primary endpoint: 30-day survival; secondary endpoints: ROSC, survival at 3, 12 months, neurologic outcome | No significant differences for primary and secondary endpoints | LUCAS does not improve survival |
LUCAS, Lund University Cardiac Assist System; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation.