Automatic Chest Compression Machine Fails to Provide Added Benefit... http://www.jwatch.org/na32932/2013/11/22/automatic-chest-compress...

ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe Renew Create Account Sign In

SUMMARY AND COMMENT | EMERGENCY MEDICINE, HOSPITAL MEDICINE,

CARDIOLOGY
Daniel J. Pallin, MD,
MPH

November 22, 2013 Associate Editor

EMERGENCY MEDICINE

Automatic Chest Biography Disclosures Summaries

Compression Machine Fails

to Provide Added Benefit
Daniel J. Pallin, MD, MPH reviewing Rubertsson S et al. JAMA
2013 Nov 17.

A large European trial found no survival benefit from using the

ADVERTISEMENT
LUCAS chest compression machine compared with manual
compressions in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. ADVERTISEMENT

Research has shown that high-quality chest compressions save

lives among cardiac arrest victims. In a manufacturer-
sponsored, multicenter, European study, researchers randomly
assigned 2589 adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
to receive manual or mechanical chest compressions. PHYSICIAN JOBS
August 10, 2014
Mechanical chest compressions were delivered by the LUCAS
Hospitalist
device, which is also approved in the U.S. The main outcome,
HOSPITALIST, BOSTON AREA HOSPITAL
4-hour survival, was 24% in both groups. Secondary outcome MASSACHUSETTS
measures (arrival at emergency department with palpable
Internal Medicine
pulse; return of spontaneous circulation; survival with good MONTEFIORE: INSPIRED MEDICINE, GENERAL
neurological outcome at discharge, 1 month, and 6 months) INTERNAL MEDICINE FACULTY
also did not differ between groups. NEW YORK

Hospitalist
BOSTON AREA HOSPITALIST
MASSACHUSETTS

Internal Medicine
Excellent Internal Medicine Opportunity in Madison,
Wisconsin!
WISCONSIN

Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

Pain Medicine (PM&R Board Certified)
COLORADO

Primary Care
Duke Medicine - Primary Care Physician
NORTH CAROLINA

nejmcareercenter.org

1 of 3 10/08/2014 12:28
Automatic Chest Compression Machine Fails to Provide Added Benefit... http://www.jwatch.org/na32932/2013/11/22/automatic-chest-compress...

ADVERTISEMENT

COMMENT
Several studies have found that chest compressions are
often of poor quality, and a 2013 meta-analysis concluded
that mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)
provided better outcomes than human-performed CPR
(NEJM JW Emerg Med May 17 2013). It makes sense
that use of a machine is a good solution to the
inconsistencies of human effort, and I have used the
LUCAS device and thought it worked well. That made this
study's result surprising. All the same, the device's
equivalence to manual chest compressions means that it
can free up personnel for other tasks.

CITATION(S):

Rubertsson S et al. Mechanical chest compressions and

simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary
resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The LINC
randomized trial. JAMA 2013 Nov 17; [e-pub ahead of print].
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.282538)

YOUR COMMENT

Name *

Email *
(will not be published)

Professional Category - None -

Professional Specialty - None -

Place of work

Comment: *

Do you have any conflict of interest to

disclose? Yes

Notify me of follow-up comments via

email

2 of 3 10/08/2014 12:28
Automatic Chest Compression Machine Fails to Provide Added Benefit... http://www.jwatch.org/na32932/2013/11/22/automatic-chest-compress...

This question is for testing whether you are

a human visitor and to prevent automated
spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.

* Required

Reader comments are intended to encourage

lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers
in the medical community. We ask that you keep
your remarks to a reasonable length, and we
reserve the right to withhold publication of
remarks that do not meet this standard.

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address,

submitted for a comment, for any other purpose
nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with
any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

About NEJM Journal Product Information Activate Print FOLLOW US:

Watch Subscription
Specialties & Topics
Help & FAQs Subscribe
Advertisers
Terms of Use Renew
Institutions
Privacy & Cookie Create Account
Editorial Policies
Policy
Sign Up for Email Alerts
Archive of PDF Issues
Contact Us
Pay A Bill
RSS
NEJM Group

NEJM Knowledge+

NEJM Journal Watch is produced by NEJM Group, a division of the Massachusetts Medical Society.
Copyright ©2014 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

3 of 3 10/08/2014 12:28