Human vs machine: a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of the LUCAS device vs manual compressions on the survival rates of patients who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrests

Background:
Manual compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be arduous, especially for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA), as ambulance personnel resources are limited, which can lead to rescuer fatigue. In 2003, the LUCAS compression device was introduced to replace manual compression, thus increasing the rate of adequate chest compressions given during CPR whilst also decreasing the amount of hands-off time, promoting more effective perfusion.

Objective:
To determine if a patient who received mechanical compression from a LUCAS device had a higher chance of surviving an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest than a patient who received manual compression.

Methods:
Using PubMed and Cochrane databases, we searched for random controlled trial studies published in the last twenty years that compare the survival rates of patients who experienced an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and received either LUCAS device compression or manual compression.

Results:
• 22 studies were identified through database searches and other sources
• 11 studies remaining once duplicates had been removed.
• A total of 11 studies were screened for eligibility, resulting in 6 studies being removed from the review.
• 1 study was removed due to being out of scope, leaving a total of 4 studies included for meta-analysis.
• The subsequent forest plot gave a p-value of 0.18 (RR 1.04 95% CI [0.98, 1.11]).

Conclusion:
There is no significant statistical difference between the survival rates of patients who experienced an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and received either LUCAS compression or manual compression. However, more research is needed across larger populations over more extended periods due to the limitations of current research data.