Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025
Reduced-gravity Environment Hardware Demonstrations of a Prototype Miniaturized Flow Cytometer and Companion Microfluidic Mixing Technology
Published on: November 13, 2014
Manual versus automatic chest compression devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation under zero gravity (The MACCC -
Nathan Reynette1, Luc Sagnières2, Benjamin Pequignot3
1Service de Médecine Intensive et Réanimation, Hôpital Brabois, CHRU Nancy, 54500 Vandœuvre-Lès-Nancy, France; Faculté de Médecine de Nancy, Université de Lorraine, DevAH UR 3450, Vandœuvre-Lès-Nancy, France.
Introduction:
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in microgravity requires specific methods to counteract weightlessness. Automatic chest compression devices (ACCDs) could improve CPR in microgravity. We aimed to compare ACCDs versus manual CPR in microgravity simulated through parabolic flights.
Methods:
This prospective, open, controlled study compared 3 ACCDs (LUCAS 3©, AUTOPULSE©, EASYPULSE©) to manual CPR during the 66th CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales) parabolic flights campaign onboard the Novespace Air Zero-G A310 aircraft. Chest compression depths and rates were monitored by a Laerdal© Resusci-Ann-QCPR manikin.
Results:
The LUCAS 3© device had a median compression depth of 53.0 [53.0-54.0] mm, significantly higher than the EASYPULSE©, AUTOPULSE©, and Manual CPR (Handstand method), measured at 29.0 [26.0-32.0] mm, 29.0 [27.5-30.7] mm and 34.5 [29.6-43.3] mm, respectively (p value < 0.001). Compression rates were 101 [101-101], 100 [100-100] and 80 [80-80] compressions per minute (cpm) for the LUCAS 3©, EASYPULSE©, and AUTOPULSE©, respectively. Manual CPR provided a significantly higher compression rate with 115 [109-123] cpm (p value < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Only LUCAS 3© provided effective CPR according to international guidelines. ACCDs should implement microgravity CPR algorithms.
