LUCAS II Device for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Nonselective Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Population Leads to Worse 30-Day Survival Rate Than Manual Chest Compressions.

BACKGROUND:The LUCAS (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System; Physio-Control Inc./Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was developed for automatic chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Evidence on the use of this device in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) suggests that it should not be used routinely because it has no superior effects. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the effect of CPR for OHCA with and without LUCAS via a regional nonurban emergency medical service (EMS) physician-present prehospital medical system. METHODS:We analyzed a prospective registry of all consecutive OHCA patients in four EMS stations. Two of them used a LUCAS device in all CPR, and the EMS crews in the other two stations used manual CPR. Individuals with contraindication to LUCAS or with EMS-witnessed arrest were excluded. RESULTS:Data from 278 patients were included in the analysis, 144 with LUCAS and 134 with manual CPR. There were more witnessed arrests in the LUCAS group (79.17% vs. 64.18%; p = 0.0074) and patients in the LUCAS group were older (p = 0.03). We found no significant difference in return of spontaneous circulation (30.6% in non-LUCAS vs. 25% in LUCAS; p = 0.35). In the LUCAS group, we observed significantly more conversions from nonshockable to shockable rhythm (20.7% vs. 10.10%; p = 0.04). The 30-day survival rate was significantly lower in the LUCAS group (5.07% vs. 16.31% in the non-LUCAS group; p = 0.044). At 180-day follow-up, we observed no significant difference (5.45% in non-LUCAS vs. 9.42% in LUCAS; p = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS:Use of the LUCAS system decreased survival rate in OHCA patients. Significantly higher 30-day mortality was seen in LUCAS-treated patients.