Automatic Chest Compression Machine Fails to Provide Added Benefit

Daniel J. Pallin, MD, MP

A large European trial found no survival benefit from using the LUCAS chest compression machine compared with manual compressions in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Research has shown that high-quality chest compressions save lives among cardiac arrest victims. In a manufacturer-sponsored, multicenter, European study, researchers randomly assigned 2589 adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive manual or mechanical chest compressions.

Mechanical chest compressions were delivered by the LUCAS device, which is also approved in the U.S. The main outcome, 4-hour survival, was 24% in both groups. Secondary outcome measures (arrival at emergency department with palpable pulse; return of spontaneous circulation; survival with good neurological outcome at discharge, 1 month, and 6 months) also did not differ between groups.

Citation(s):

Rubertsson S et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The LINC randomized trial. JAMA 2013 Nov 17; [e-pub ahead of print].