Deliver guidelines-consistent, high-quality chest compressions with less strain, micromanagement, and risk for the caregiver. The LUCAS chest compression system provides benefits both to the cardiac arrest patient and the resuscitation team.
The LUCAS device extends the reach of care by maintaining chest compressions during transport to advanced lifesaving therapies, including ECMO or PCI in the cath lab. It can improve provider safety, avoiding fatigue over long durations and reducing transport risks by allowing caregivers to sit belted. And it can increase the efficiency of caregiving teams, calming the scene and providing an extra pair of hands so they can focus on the patient and underlying conditions.
Deliver guidelines-consistent chest compressions for as long as needed to allow difficult-to-resuscitate patients access to advanced lifesaving therapies. The LUCAS device helps bring life-saving interventions like ECMO/ECPR within reach of patients who don’t respond to CPR and defibrillation alone.
The LUCAS device provides high quality guidelines-consistent chest compressions, shown by research to increase the chances of good patient outcomes, while helping to prevent caregiver fatique, variation in CPR quality and CPR related injuries in healthcare providers.
The LUCAS device has demonstrated increased blood flow to the brain4,5 and achieved higher EtCO2 values compared to manual compressions.6,7
Calm chaotic scenes and enable caregivers to focus their skills and judgement where it matters most. Relying on LUCAS to provide guidelines-consistent high-quality CPR allows you to focus on what’s important; life-saving interventions, speedy diagnosis and treatment of underlying conditions.
"If someone had told me about an 8-hour cardiac arrest. I wouldn't have believed it. But this truly happened."
– Alessandro Forti, MD
HEMS Head Coordinator, Italy
** LUCAS 3, version 3.1, LIFENET and CODESTAT are available in major markets. Please contact your local Stryker representative for more information about LUCAS and data connectivity.
When you invest in our lifesaving devices and data products, you are buying more than quality design and manufacturing—you’re also buying our unrivaled commitment to customer service and support.
Our excellent field service team stands beside you to make sure your lifesaving devices are ready when you need them. Highly experienced, our field service team knows to use, care for, maintain and repair your device better than anyone, giving your devices the longest possible life.
We offer one of the largest networks of technical service representatives in the industry. We’ll work with you to quickly assess any issues and find the best solution.
Comprehensive training is important for the optimal use of the LUCAS. Classroom-based, hands-on training resources, online device training with films and tests, and customized programs all help you start using it quickly and with maximum effectiveness.
Rely on the LIFEPAK 15 monitor/defibrillator for the confidence you need in emergencies and the highest available escalating energy, up to 360 joules (360J).
Learn moreSources
1. Putzer G, Braun P, Zimmerman A, et al. LUCAS compared to manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue–a prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin study. Am J Emerg Med.2013 Feb;31(2):384-9.
2. Gyory R, Buchle S, Rodgers D, et al. The efficacy of LUCAS in prehospital cardiac arrest scenarios: A crossover mannequin study. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(3):437-445.
3. Olasveengen TM, Wik L, Steen PA. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and during transport in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2008;76(2):185-90.
4. Carmona Jiménez F, Padró PP, García AS, et al.. Cerebral flow improvement during CPR with LUCAS, measured by Doppler. Resuscitation. 2011, 82S1:30, AP090. [Also published in a longer version, in Spanish with English abstract, in Emergencias. 2012;24:47-49].
5. Rubertsson S, Karlsten R.Increased cortical cerebral blood flow with LUCAS; a new device for mechanical chest compressions compared to standard external compressions during experimental cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2005:65(3);357-363
6. Axelsson C, Karlsson T, Axelsson A, et al. Mechanical active compression-decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ACD-CPR) versus manual CPR according to pressure of end tidal carbon dioxide (PETCO2) during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Resuscitation. 2009, 80(10):1099-1103.
7. Chandler P, Ibrahim M. AS099. Manual chest compressions versus LUCAS 2 – A comparative study of end-tidal carbon dioxide levels during in-hospital resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2017, 118 (suppl 1):e41. Oral presentation.
8. Levy M, Yost D, Walker R, et al., A quality improvement initiative to optimize use of a mechanical chest compression device within a high-performance CPR approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;92:32-37
M0000013168 REV AA