1Putzer 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.
2Gyory 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.
3Olasveengen 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.
4Carmona 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].
5Rubertsson 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
6Axelsson 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.
7Chandler 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.
8Levy 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