Resucitation with the LUCAS and AutoPulse automated chest compression devices: comparison of hemodynamic variables in a porcine model

Background and objective: Cardiac output generated from chest compressions during resuscitation maneuvres can predict effectiveness and successful outcome. During manual chest compressions, blood flow to vital organs is generally impaired because the quality of manual chest compressions is significantly inferior to that recommended by international resuscitation guidelines. Furthermore, it is difficult to perform effective chest compressions during transport. Automated devices have been designed to improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation and some have been shown to improve haemodynamics and short term outcome. No comparative studies have been done. In this study we aimed to compare the LUCAS and AutoPulse devices.Methods: Experimental study in 24 Yorkshire pigs. Hemodynamic variables and end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) were recorded during a period of resuscitation in supine position. These variables were compared between device groups. Hennodynamic variables were analyzed by means a general linear model for longitudinal data.Results: Significantly higher cardiac output and ETCO2 (P < .001) were found in the LUCAS group on follow-up. The analysis showed no significant differences in mean arterial pressure (P = .121) or coronary perfusion pressure (P = .690) between groups.Conclusions: LUCAS and AutoPulse devices were both effective in generating and maintaining adequate cardiac output and coronary perfusion pressure. The present study suggests that the LUCAS device may be superior to the AutoPulse device when comparing cardiac output and ETCO2 values generated during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; however, no differences in coronary perfusion pressure were found.