About us|Cardiac Arrest|LUCAS CPR|For users|News & Media|Contact|

Current gaps

Quality of CPR matters for survival

Several human and experimental studies show that the quality of CPR prior to defibrillation directly affects clinical outcomes (5, 6,7,8). Shallow chest compressions are strongly associated with defibrillation failure (9).

Every interruption in chest compressions causes the coronary perfusion pressure to drop - a pressure that is correlated to successful restoration of heart rhythm. The longer the pre-shock pause is, the lower the success of the defibrillation (9).

Quality of CPR is exceedingly difficult to keep up manually

It is widely recognised that manual CPR is difficult work. Due to fatigue, only a mere 20-30% of the compressions performed after the first few minutes are done correctly according to the guidelines. This is true even for trained professionals, and without the rescuer being able to perceive the change of quality him/herself (1, 2).

The compression technique is not obvious. The compression rate is often too high initially and the compressions are generally too shallow (3). Full chest recoil between each compression is important to allow for cardiac refill, but difficult to achieve.

In addition, studies show that far too little time overall is spent on keeping the flow up during rescue attempts – chest compressions are provided only during 50% of the available time (4).

Providing CPR during transportation is difficult and unsafe

Whether a cardiac arrest patient needs to be navigated with ongoing CPR through hospital corridors, or transported in an ambulance – it is difficult for the rescuer to provide effective compressions during movement. Moreover, it is a clear safety issue that all personnel must be able to be seated with a seatbelt on in the ambulance. Most ambulance crashes occur during emergency use. Most serious and fatal injuries occurred in the rear and to improperly restrained occupants (10).

The solution

LUCAS™ Chest Compression System is designed to overcome the current gaps in CPR.

Read more about LUCAS™ here.

References with link to Pubmed

1. Ochoa et al, Resuscitation 37 (1998) 149–152

2. Hightower D et al, Ann Emerg Med 1995;26:300-303

3. Aufderheide et al, Resuscitation. 2006 Oct 27

4. Wik et al, JAMA, January 19, 2005, Vol. 293 No. 3

5. Wik et al, JAMA, March 19, 2003 - Vol 280, No 11; 1389-1395

6. Cobb et al, JAMA, 1999, 281:1182-8

7. Berg et al, Ann Emerg Med: 40 (6):563-570

8. Steen et al, Resuscitation 58 (2003); 249-258

9. Edelson et al, Resuscitation 71 (2006) 137-145

10. Jones et al, Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2005) 78:332-336

Latest news
Train on LUCAS™

Physio-Control Inc. / Jolife AB, Ideon Science Park, SE-223 70 Lund, Sweden, Tel: +46 (0) 46 286 50 00, Fax: +46 (0) 46 286 50 10, info@lucas-cpr.com
Powered by Publiciteta&Co