Our story so far.. episode 92 looked at a study showing lower survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients treated with mechanical compression devices. Episode 93 discussed an implementation study of implementing LUCAS devices in a system with high quality pit crew CPR also showing lower survival, despite spending lots of time in training on how to optimally apply the LUCAS to avoid prolonged compression interruptions and movement. 

Now we’re diving into the literature around AutoPulse, the load-distributing band device. We’ll cover two randomized controlled trials and one well-done observational study comparing AutoPulse to manual CPR. Don’t worry, LUCAS studies will be in the next episode.

Citations
1. Hallstrom A, Rea TD, Sayre MR, Christenson J, Anton AR, Mosesso VN, Van Ottingham L, Olsufka M, Pennington S, White LJ, et al.: Manual Chest Compression vs Use of an Automated Chest Compression Device During Resuscitation Following Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2006;June 14;295(22).
2. Ong MEH, Ornato JP, Edwards DP, Dhindsa HS, Best AM, Ines CS, Hickey S, Clark B, Williams DC, Powell RG, et al.: Use of an Automated, Load-Distributing Band Chest Compression Device for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation. JAMA. 2006;June 14;295(22).
3. Wik L, Olsen J-A, Persse D, Sterz F, Lozano M, Brouwer MA, Westfall M, Souders CM, Malzer R, Van Grunsven PM, et al.: Manual vs. integrated automatic load-distributing band CPR with equal survival after out of hospital cardiac arrest. The randomized CIRC trial. Resuscitation. 2014;June;85(6):741–8.