A healthcare professional must always rely on his or her own professional clinical judgment when deciding whether to use a particular product when treating a particular patient and must refer to the package insert, product label and/or instructions for use before using any Stryker product.
Shown to improve CPR quality, on the move and over long durations5-8,16
The LUCAS device extends the reach of care by maintaining chest compressions during transport to advanced lifesaving therapies, including ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) in the cath lab. By increasing provider safety37, avoiding fatigue over long durations38 and reducing transport risks by allowing caregivers to sit belted2,39, the LUCAS device can help calm the scene and provide an extra pair of hands.
50,000+
With more than 50,000 devices in the global market, a patient is treated approximately every minute9,10
>99%
Operational reliability in clinical use11
+60%
Increased blood flow to the brain vs. manual CPR12
Improve CPR quality
By using automated, guidelines-consistent CPR, the LUCAS device provides consistent and high-quality chest compressions shown by research to increase the chances of good patient outcomes13. In studies, it was shown that the LUCAS device has been demonstrated to increase blood flow to the brain12,14 and achieve higher EtCO2 values compared to manual compressions.15
High-quality CPR with fewer interruptions16
Delivery of high-quality CPR is vital for patient outcomes. The LUCAS device delivers chest compressions with guidelines-consistent depth of 5.3 cm / 2.1 inches and rate of 102 per minute1.*
* LUCAS 3, version 3.1 can be configured for depth and rate.
Extend your care reach
Delivers consistent, high-quality chest compressions for as long as the patient requires them.17 * Serves as a bridge to care for patients that have not responded to traditional resuscitation interventions. The LUCAS device provides perfusion during angiography and PCI in the cath lab.18
Keep your team safe
Help reduce caregiver risk during patient transport and in the cath lab with potentially reduced x-ray exposure and less body strain to the CPR provider.
Enhance team efficiency
Focus on other life-saving tasks like diagnosis and the treatment of underlying conditions.6
* When using multiple batteries or an external power source, battery typically lasts for 45 minutes of operation.20
Product highlights
Easy to learn and use19
- Low-profile back plate for patient application
- Spacious support structure accommodates larger patients20
- A median of only 7 seconds of interruption demonstrated when transitioning from manual to mechanical CPR in clinical use42
- Straps secure patient arms and device during transport
Configure to your protocols within guidelines*
- Configure compression rate, depth and alerts to your protocols via LIFENET connectivity
- Adjustable ventilation alerts, pause length and count
- Timer to remind rhythm and pulse checks
- Set auto-lowering and pressure pad parameters to your preferences
Access and share post-event data*
- Make QI/QA documentation faster and easier with emailed post-event reports
- Connect wirelessly to the LIFENET System
- Easy-access to LUCAS device data enables productive post-event review
- Integrate with CODE-STAT data review software
Convenient to store and carry
- Battery operation encourages portability
- Lightweight and compact carrying case includes a window for quick battery checks
- External power supply enables prolonged operation and charging
- Device can be charged inside the case through access port
Facilitate asset management*
- Confirm device or fleet status via LIFENET connectivity
*LUCAS 3, v3.1, LIFENET and CODE-STAT are available in major markets. Please contact your local Stryker representative for more information about the LUCAS device and data connectivity.
Randomized controlled trials
The highest level of evidence21, randomized, controlled LINC (LUCAS in Cardiac Arrest)11 trial on 2,589 pre-hospital cardiac arrest patients shows:
- LUCAS is as safe and effective as high-quality manual CPR
- Good neurological outcomes (CPC Scale Score of 1-2)
Another randomized, controlled trial on 259 cardiac arrest patients has shown:
- LUCAS did not cause more injuries than manual CPR22
US versions - for Europe/MEA version, see Resources
>99%
of the survivors treated with LUCAS had good neurological outcomes (CPC Scale Score of 1-2) at 6 months follow up11
Outcome data
A helpful tool for progressive systems of care
Systems of care implementing the LUCAS device together with a comprehensive approach to resuscitation have shown increased ROSC rates13,23-29 as well as improved survival with good neurological outcomes13,29,30 compared to historical data.
The Emergency Department at North Shore University Hospital, NY, US, significantly improved their ROSC rates, going from 26% to 41%, using LUCAS chest compressions, a team-focused resuscitation strategy and video-reviews.28
† Axelsson C, Herrera M, Fredriksson M, et al. Implementation of mechanical chest compression in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in an emergency medical service system. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(8):1196-1200.
† Şener A, Günaydın GP, Tanrıverdi F et al.Manual versus mechanical chest compression in in-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort in emergency department patients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2022;22(2):83-88.
Quality CPR
LUCAS allows for defibrillation during ongoing compressions
LUCAS allows for application of the defibrillation electrodes outside the suction cup.20 The LUCAS device does not need to be stopped when delivering the shock (only stop when doing the rhythm analysis).11
Defibrillation and ventilation with LUCAS
US version - for Europe/MEA version, see Resources
More CPR time with LUCAS
LUCAS has documented chest compression fractions of up to 93%, leading to significantly more flow time compared to manual CPR.16,31-33,41
Buys time to find and treat reversible causes
Implementing a progressive program approach to take appropriate patients from the field to the hospital for advanced life-saving interventions, such as ECMO and PCI, resulted in an increase in survival rate with good neurological function from 8.2% to 50%.34
LUCAS allows the healthcare provider to perform simultaneous diagnosis and treatment of reversible causes, e.g. coronary occlusion, pulmonary emboli, intoxication or accidental hypothermia.6,17,35,40
Saves lives in the cath lab
- Using LUCAS during PCI, 25% vs. historical 10% of sudden cardiac arrest patients who did not respond to normal advanced resuscitation efforts, could be saved with good neurological outcome. This despite prolonged CPR durations of up to 50 minutes.30
- Life-saving PCI during LUCAS chest compressions leads to significant improvements in ROSC in cardiac arrest patients with persistent VF or non-shockable rhythms.27
Configure multiple device parameters to better meet your protocols**
The LUCAS 3, v3.1, allows for tailored rates to meet your protocols, alerts configuration, Post-Event Reports to your inbox, and asset notifications by e-mail.
If setup options are not applied, the device will operate according to its factory default settings, which are identical to LUCAS 3, v3.0 and LUCAS 2, v2.2.
The training, application steps and user interface remain the same as for LUCAS 3 and LUCAS 2.
Compressions
(Rate change on the fly)
Compressions
(Depth)
Suction cup
(AutoFit, QuickFit, manual)
Ventilation
(Number of prompts, alerts,
pause duration, chest rise)
Audible Timer
(continuous or CPR Timer)
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
connectivity
E-mail
Asset notifications and Post-Event Reports
**Setup options should be changed only under the direction of a physician knowledgeable in cardiopulmonary resuscitation who is familiar with the literature in this area.
Cath lab compatible*
Optional carbon fiber back plate to allow for interventional life-saving procedures and bridge to definitive care.
Allows various angles
Most radiological projection angles can be used during LUCAS CPR.36
US version - for Europe/MEA version, see Resources
* Caution – adjunctive therapies: The use of other medical equipment or drugs in conjunction with the LUCAS device can affect the treatment. Always consult the instructions for use for the other equipment and/or drugs to make sure that they are applicable in conjunction with CPR.
Connecting LUCAS to LIFENET
With your LUCAS purchase you will get a LUCAS LIFENET Asset account. Read how to connect and set up your LUCAS in the Connectivity guide
View reports in CODE-STAT and LIFENET Analytics
LUCAS Post-Event Review is integrated with CODE-STAT (version 11 and higher) and LIFENET Analytics cloud based reports
LUCAS web training
Read, listen and watch how to apply the LUCAS chest compression system for training and re-training purposes.
Users are encouraged to do refresher training at least once a year. Please select your LUCAS device below.
FAQs
The following questions and answers apply only to the LUCAS 3, v3.1.
Assembled dimensions: 22.0 x 20.5 x 9.4 inches20
In carrying case dimensions: 22.8 x 13.0 x 10.2 inches20
The rate of compressions is 102 +/- two compressions per minute20
The device with battery (no straps) weighs 17.7 pounds. The battery weighs 1.3 pounds.20
There is no patient weight limit. The chest height can be between 6.7 to 11.9 inches with a maximum chest width of 17.7 inches.20
Interested in learning more? Connect with an expert.
Thanks!
M0000014366 REV AA
Manufacturer
Jolife AB, a part of Stryker
Scheelevägen 17
Ideon Science Park
SE-223 70 Lund, Sweden
Tel: +46 (0) 46 286 50 00
info@lucas-cpr.com
ProCare Services
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.
Technical support
We'll work with you to quickly assess your situation and find the best solution.
LIFEPAK 35 monitor/defibrillator
The LIFEPAK 35 monitor/defibrillator for hospitals and EMS is a future-ready device designed to promote confident cardiac care, enable clinical excellence and deliver in demanding environments.
Learn more
Prime Series
Our Prime Series stretchers are designed to reduce physical strain on clinicians, enhance comfort during patient transport and drive hospital efficiency. Fully equipped and highly configurable, our Prime Series stretchers allow you to create a solution that meets your specific needs.
Learn more
LIFEPAK CR2 defibrillator
The LIFEPAK CR2 AED response system empowers bystanders to help save lives. Innovative, easy-to-operate technology helps minimize interruptions in chest compressions and helps streamline communication across the system of care.
Learn more1. Beesems SG, Hardig BM, Nilsson A, Koster RW, Force and depth of mechanical chest compressions and their relation to chest height and gender in an out-of-hospital setting, Resuscitation, 2015;91:67-72.
2. Becker L, Zaloshnja E, Levick N, et al. Relative risk of injury and death in ambulances and other emergency vehicles. Accident analysis and prevention. 2003;35(6): 941-948.
3. Jones A, Lee R. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and back injury in ambulance officers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health.2005 May;78 (4); 332-336.
4. Edelson, et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Circulation. 2020.
5. 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.
6. 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):437-45.
7. Magliocca A, Olivari D, De Giorgio D, et al. LUCAS Versus Manual Chest Compression During Ambulance Transport: A Hemodynamic Study in a Porcine Model of Cardiac Arrest. Journal of the American Heart Association 2018;8(1).
8. Steen S, Liao Q, Pierre L, et al. Evaluation of LUCAS, a new device for automatic mechanical compression and active decompression resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2002;3(55): 285-299.
9. Data on file, Stryker, Lindroth S, sales volume over 8 years, 2025.
10. Data on file, Stryker Lindroth S, frequency calculation.
11. Rubertsson S, Lindgren E, Smekal D, et al. Mechanical chest compressions and simultaneous defibrillation vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The LINC randomized trial. JAMA. 2013;311(1):53-61.
12. 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].
13. Sporer K, Jacobs M, Derevin L, et al. Continuous quality improvement efforts increase survival with favorable neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;14:1-6.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Forti A, Brugnaro P, Rauch S, et al. Hypothermic Cardiac Arrest With Full Neurologic Recovery After Approximately Nine Hours of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Management and Possible Complications. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;73(1):52-57.
18. William P, Rao P, Kanakadandi U, et al. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in and on the way to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circ J. 2016:25;80(6):1292-1299.
19. Pocock H, Deakin C, Quinn T, et al. Human factors in pre-hospital research: lessons from the PARAMEDIC trial. Emerg Med J Online. Feb 25, 2016.
20. Data on file, Stryker LUCAS 3 chest compression system Instructions for Use 101034-00.
21. Morrison L, Gent L, Lang E, et al. Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015;132[suppl 2]:S368–S382.
22. Koster R W, Beenen L F, Van der Boom E B, et al. Safety of mechanical chest compression devices AutoPulse and LUCAS in cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial for non-inferiority. European Heart Journal. 2017;38:3006-3013.
23. Saussy JM., et al. Optimization of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation With an Impedance Threshold Device, Automated Compression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Post-Resuscitation in-the-Field Hypothermia Improves Short-term Outcomes Following Cardiac Arrest. Circulation. 23 November 2010; 122: A256.
24. Maule Y. Mechanical external chest compression: A new adjuvant technology in cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. (Translated from French language: L’assistance cardiaque externe: nouvelle approche dans la RCP.) Urgences & Accueil. 2007;29:4-7
25. Pepe PE., et al. Abstract 15255: How Would Use of Flow-Focused Adjuncts, Passive Ventilation and Head-Up CPR Affect All-Rhythm Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Rates in a Large, Complex EMS System? Circulation. 2016;134:A15255
26. Anantharaman V., et al. Prompt use of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the MECCA study report. Singapore Med J. 2017; 58(7): 424-31.
27. Venturini JM., et al. Mechanical chest compressions improve rate of return of spontaneous circulation and allow for initiation of percutaneous circulatory support during cardiac arrest in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Resuscitation. 2017 Jun;115:56-60.
28. Rolston, DM, Li T, Owens C, et al. Mechanical, team-focused, video-reviewed cardiopulmonary resuscitation improves return of spontaneous circulation after emergency department implementation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9:e014420.
29. Crowley CP, Wan ES, Salciccioli JD, et al. The Use of Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation May Be Associated With Improved Outcomes Over Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Inhospital Cardiac Arrests. Crit Care Explor. 2020 Nov; 2(11):e0261.
30. Wagner H., et al. Mechanical chest compressions in the coronary catheterization laboratory to facilitate coronary intervention and survival in patients requiring prolonged resuscitation efforts. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016; 24:4.
31. Esibov A., et al. Mechanical chest compressions improved aspects of CPR in the LINC trial. Resuscitation. 2015 Jun;91:116-21.
32. Kamrud J, Boland L, Frazee C, et al. Use of transthoracic impedance data to evaluate intra-arrest chest compression quality. International Journal of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine. (2016) 2:014.
33. Tranberg T., et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest before and after introduction of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS-2; a prospective, observational study. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. (2015) 23:37.
34. Yannopoulos D, Bartos J, Martin C, et al. Minnesota Resuscitation Consortium’s Advanced Perfusion and Reperfusion Cardiac Life Support Strategy for Out-of-Hospital Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2016;5:e003732, originally published June 13, 2016.
35. Bonnemeier H, Simonis G, Olivecrona G, et al. Continuous mechanical chest compression during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with pulseless electrical activity. Resuscitation. 2011;82:155-9
36. Wagner H, Terkelsen C, Friberg H, et al. Cardiac arrest in the catheterisation laboratory: A 5-year experience of using mechanical chest compressions to facilitate PCI during prolonged resuscitation efforts. Resuscitation. 2010;81(4):383-387.
37. AHA Guidelines: Panchal A, Bartos J, Cabanas J, et al. Part 3: Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support. 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2020;142(16_suppl_2), S366–S468.
38. Sugerman NT, Edelson DP, Leary M, et al. Rescuer fatigue during actual inhospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation with audiovisual feedback: a prospective multicenter study. Resuscitation 2009;80:981-4.
39. Fox J, Fiechter R, Gerstl P, et al. Mechanical versus manual chest compression CPR under ground ambulance transport conditions. Acute Cardiac Care 2013;15:1-6.
40. Libungan B, Dworeck C, Omerovic E. Successful percutaneous coronary intervention during cardiac arrest with use of an automated chest compression device: A case report. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. 2014;10:255-257.
41. Maule Yves. Assistance cardiaque externe : Masser mieux, mais surtout masser plus. URGENCE PRATIQUE. 2011 No106. (article in French)
42. 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
EC-LUC-SYK-1570318_REV-0_en_us