LUCAS Device Use Associated with Prolonged Pauses During Application and Long Chest Compression Intervals

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Tenets of high-quality out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation include early recognition and treatment of shockable rhythms, and minimizing interruptions in compressions. Little is known about how use of a mechanical compression device affects these elements. We hypothesize that use of such a device is associated with prolonged pauses in compressions to apply the device, and long compression intervals overall. Methods We systematically abstracted CPR metrics from 4 months of adult non-traumatic OHCA cases, each of which had at least 10 minutes of resuscitation, used a LUCAS device, and had a valid monitor file attached to the patient care report. Our primary outcomes of interest were the duration of each pause in compressions and the duration of compressions between pauses, stratified by whether or not the LUCAS device was used/applied during the segment. Each pause was further evaluated for a possible associated procedure based on pre-defined criteria. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used as appropriate. Results Fifty-eight cases were included, median age 62.5 years (IQR 49.3-70.8), 47% female, 66% non-White. Overall, 633 compression-pause segments were analyzed (517 with and 116 without LUCAS applied). Spacing of pauses was significantly longer with the LUCAS than without [median (IQR) 133 (82-213) seconds vs. 38 (18-62) seconds, p < 0.05]. When using a LUCAS, compressions were continuous for at least 3 minutes in 166/517 segments, at least 4 minutes in 89/517 segments, and at least 5 minutes in 56/517 segments. Without a LUCAS, compressions were longer than 3 minutes in 7/116 segments. Pauses exceeded 10 seconds more frequently with LUCAS application (32/38) than airway management or defibrillation (27/80, p < 0.05). Peri-LUCAS pauses exceeded 30 seconds in 6/38 cases. Conclusion LUCAS use was associated with long compression intervals without identifiable pauses to assess for pulse or cardiac rhythm, and device application was associated with longer pauses than airway management or defibrillation. The clinical significance and effect on patient outcomes remain uncertain and require further study.