Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Standardized Model of Ventricular Fibrillation and Advanced Cardiac Life Support in Swine
Published on: January 30, 2020
The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study
Robert A Gyory1, Scott E Buchle2,3, David Rodgers4
1Penn State College of Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Introduction:
High-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is critical for successful cardiac arrest outcomes. Mechanical devices may improve CPR quality. We simulated a prehospital cardiac arrest, including patient transport, and compared the performance of the LUCAS™ device, a mechanical chest compression-decompression system, to manual CPR. We hypothesized that because of the movement involved in transporting the patient, LUCAS would provide chest compressions more consistent with high-quality CPR guidelines.
Methods:
We performed a crossover-controlled study in which a recording mannequin was placed on the second floor of a building. An emergency medical services (EMS) crew responded, defibrillated, and provided either manual or LUCAS CPR. The team transported the mannequin through hallways and down stairs to an ambulance and drove to the hospital with CPR in progress. Critical events were manually timed while the mannequin recorded data on compressions.
Results:
Twenty-three EMS providers participated. Median time to defibrillation was not different for LUCAS compared to manual CPR (p=0.97). LUCAS had a lower median number of compressions per minute (112/min vs. 125/min; IQR = 102-128 and 102-126 respectively; p<0.002), which was more consistent with current American Heart Association CPR guidelines, and percent adequate compression rate (71% vs. 40%; IQR = 21-93 and 12-88 respectively; p<0.002). In addition, LUCAS had a higher percent adequate depth (52% vs. 36%; IQR = 25-64 and 29-39 respectively; p<0.007) and lower percent total hands-off time (15% vs. 20%; IQR = 10-22 and 15-27 respectively; p<0.005). LUCAS performed no differently than manual CPR in median compression release depth, percent fully released compressions, median time hands off, or percent correct hand position.
Conclusion:
In our simulation, LUCAS had a higher rate of adequate compressions and decreased total hands-off time as compared to manual CPR. Chest compression quality may be better when using a mechanical device during patient movement in prehospital cardiac arrest patient.
More Related Videos
08:19Transthoracic Echocardiography to Assess Post-Resuscitation Left Ventricular Dysfunction After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest in Pigs
Published on: July 12, 2022
04:55Author Spotlight: Simulating Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Using a Neonatal Piglet Model
Published on: May 26, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation II: ACLS Airway Management
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation I: Adult
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation V: Advanced Airway Management Techniques