Abstract
Purpose of the study: Early start of high quality chest compressions without interruptions is of major importance for survival after cardiac arrest. Manual compressions are unfortunately of variable quality and very dependent on the rescuer [1]. We wanted to compare two different commercially available mechanical chest compression devices (m-CCD) with manual chest compressions. Methods: A load-distributing band compression device (AutoPulse) was compared to an active compression–decompression piston device (LUCAS).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
