96 Citations (Scopus)


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
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3006-3013
JournalEuropean Heart journal
Issue number40
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Cite this