Current situation of mechanical CPR devices in donors after cardiac death


Mechanical CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) devices help performing correct chest compressions in the event of a cardiorespiratory arrest. These devices are comfortable and useful, they keep chest compression following the recommendations as they do not depend on interpersonal variability, they do not get tired, their use is simple and one of the rescuers is released from this task, thus facilitating the assistance. Besides, their use in transport conditions makes it safer. However, when coming to results, these mechanical CPR devices have not clearly demonstrated such an advantage, neither in the field of cardiac arrest, nor in organ preservation in the case of donors after cardiac death. In donors after cardiac death they are widely used by most of the emergency services involved, but a number of injuries produced in lungs during the early years of their use have made it controversial. In this paper we make a review of the road traveled by mechanical CPR devices and of the main articles which mark the way.

Share and Cite:

Mateos Rodríguez, A. , Navalpotro Pascual, J. , Brunete Ingelmo, V. and Carmona Jiménez, F. (2013) Current situation of mechanical CPR devices in donors after cardiac death. Open Journal of Emergency Medicine, 1, 5-7. doi: 10.4236/ojem.2013.12002.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Nielsen, N., Sandhall, L., Schersten, F., Friberg, H. and Olsson, S.E. (2005) Successful resuscitation with mechanical CPR, therapeutic hypothermia and coronary intervention during manual CPR after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation, 65, 111-113.
[2] Casner, M., Anderson, D., et al. (2005) Preliminary report of the impact of a new CPR assist device on the rate of return of spontaneous circulation in out of hospital car- diac arrest. Pre-Hospital Emergency Medicine, 9, 61-67.
[3] Steen, S., Liao, Q., Pierre, L., Paskevicius, A. and Sjoberg, T. (2002) Evaluation of LUCAS, a new device for automatic mechanical compression and active decompression resuscitation. Resuscitation, 55, 285-599.
[4] (2012) Consent document for asystole donors in Spain. Organización Nacional de Trasplantes.
[5] ESOT (2013) 6th International Conference Donors after Cardiac Death. European Society for Organ Transplantation, Paris.
[6] Smekal, D., Johansson, J., Huzevka, T. and Rubertsson, S. (2009) No difference in autopsy detected injuries in cardiac arrest patients treated with manual chest compressions compared with mechanical compressions with the LUCAS? device—A pilot study. Resuscitation, 80, 1104-1107.
[7] (2012) CIRC trial. European Resuscitation Council Con-gress, Vienna.
[8] (2103) LINC trail. Oral comunication. European Cardiology Congress, Amsterdam.
[9] Ballesteros Pe?a, S. (2013) Survival after prehospital cardiac arrest in Spain: A review of the literature. Emergencias, 25, 137-142.
[10] Wigginton, J.G., Isaacs, S.M. and Kay, J.J. (2007) Mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 13, 273-279.
[11] Carmona Jiménez, F., Palma Padró, P., Soto García, M.A. and Rodríguez Venegas, J.C. (2012) Cerebral blood flow measured by transcranial doppler ultrasound during manual chest wall or automated LUCAS-2 compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Emergencias, 24, 47-49.
[12] Olasveengen, T.M., Wik, L. and Steen, P.A. (2008) Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before and during transport in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation, 76, 970-976.
[13] Camacho Leis, C., Almagro González, V., De Elías Hernández, R., Esquilas Sánchez, O., Moreno Martín, J.L., Mu?oz Hermosa, E.J., et al. (2013) Feedback on chest compression quality variables and their relationship to rate of return of spontaneous circulation. Emergencias, 25, 99-104.
[14] Mateos Rodríguez, A.A., Navalpotro Pascual, M.J., Mar- tín Maldonado, M.E., Barba Alonso, C., Pardillos Ferrer, L. and Andrés Belmonte, A. (2010) Mechanical cardio- pump use in organ donation after prehospital cardiac death, Emergencias, 22, 264-268.
[15] Mateos-Rodriguez, Navalpotro-Pascual, J.M., Pardillos- Ferrer, L. and Martin-Maldonado (2010) Cardiac life mechanical support in extrahospitalary donors after cardiac dead. Resuscitation, 81, 904-905.
[16] Mateos-Rodríguez, A.A., Navalpotro-Pascual, J.M. and Andres-Belmonte, A. (2013) Donor after cardiac death kidney graft under mechanical cardiac compression evo- lution. Resuscitation, 84, 117-119.
[17] Carmona Jiménez, F., Ruiz Arránz, A., Palma Padró, P., Soto García, A., Alberola Martín, M. and Saavedra Escobar, S. (2012) Use of the Lucas mechanical chest com- pression device in an asystolic organ donation program: effect on kidney perfusion and organ procurement and transplantation rate. Emergencias, 24, 366-371.
[18] Menzies, D., et al. (2010) Does the LUCAS device result in increased injury during CPR? Resuscitation, 81, S20.
[19] Xanthos, T., et al. (2010) A comparison of autopsy detected injuries in a porcine model of cardiac arrest treated with either manual or mechanical chest compressions. European Journal of Emergency Medicine, in Press.
[20] Englund, E., et al. (2008) Injuries after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A comparison between LUCAS mechanical CPR and standard CPR. Resuscitation, 77, AS-036.
[21] Rodríguez, A.A.M., Pascual, J.M.N. and del Río Gallegos, F. (2013) Lung transplant of extrahospitalary donor after cardiac death. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 31, 710-711.

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.