Cardiac arrest with continuous mechanical chest compression during percutaneous coronary intervention. A report on the use of the LUCAS device

Mechanical chest compression may be necessary to make coronary intervention possible during resuscitation. We report our experience using the Lund University Cardiac Arrest System (LUCAS, Jolife, Lund, Sweden) which is a gas-driven sternal compression device that incorporates a suction cup for activ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Resuscitation 2007-12, Vol.75 (3), p.454-459
Main Authors: Larsen, Alf Inge, Hjørnevik, Ashild S, Ellingsen, Christian Lycke, Nilsen, Dennis W T
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Assisted Circulation - instrumentation
Assisted Circulation - statistics & numerical data
Cardiac Catheterization
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - adverse effects
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods
Equipment Design
Female
Heart Arrest - diagnosis
Heart Arrest - therapy
Heart Massage - adverse effects
Heart Massage - instrumentation
Heart Massage - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Mechanical chest compression may be necessary to make coronary intervention possible during resuscitation. We report our experience using the Lund University Cardiac Arrest System (LUCAS, Jolife, Lund, Sweden) which is a gas-driven sternal compression device that incorporates a suction cup for active decompression. During the last 13 months LUCAS has been used in our catheterisation laboratory to maintain adequate organ perfusion pressure in 13 patients with cardiac arrest or severe hypotension and bradycardia (male/female ratio 1.6, mean age 59+/-19). The mean compression time was 105+/-60min (range 45-240), and the mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure obtained was 81+/-23 and 34+/-21mmHg, respectively. Angiography and eventually percutanous coronary intervention was possible in all cases during ongoing automatic chest compression. Three patients survived the procedure, but no patients were discharged alive. In two cases we found inadequate flow in the anterior descending artery, and in one case the invasive measurements revealed inadequate coronary perfusion pressure. There were no excessive intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal injuries. We conclude that the LUCAS device is suitable during cardiac catheterisation and intervention, and the device ensures an adequate systemic blood pressure in most patients without life-threatening injuries.
ISSN:0300-9572
DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.05.007