LUCAS 3, v3.1 chest compression system
Shown to improve CPR quality, on the move and over long durations1-3
The LUCAS device extends the reach of care by maintaining chest compressions during transport to advanced lifesaving therapies, including ECMO or PCI in the cath lab. By increasing provider safety, avoiding fatigue over long durations and reducing transport risks by allowing caregivers to sit belted, the LUCAS device can help calm the scene and provide an extra pair of hands.
KEY BENEFITS
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 outcomes. The LUCAS device has demonstrated to increase blood flow to the brain4,5 and achieve higher EtCO2 values compared to manual compressions.6,7
Extend your care reach
Deliver consistent chest compressions for the duration needed. Bring ECMO/ECPR within reach for patients who don't respond to CPR and defibrillation alone and help save more lives during angiography and PCI in the cath lab.
Keep your team safe
Help reduce caregiver risk during patient transport and in the cath lab with reduced x-ray exposure and less body strain to the CPR provider.
Enhance team efficiency
Focus on other lifesaving tasks and speed up diagnoses and treatment of underlying conditions.
The LUCAS device provides high-quality chest compressions for patients in cardiac arrest.
The LUCAS device by the numbers
50,000+
With more than 50,000 devices in the global market, a patient is treated approximately every minute8,9
>99%
Operation reliability in clinical use10
+60%
Increased blood flow to the brain vs. manual CPR11
PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS
LUCAS 3, v3.1 device
Deploy easily and quickly
- Low-profile back plate for fast, smooth patient application
- Spacious support structure accommodates larger patients
- A median of only 7 seconds of interruption demonstrated when transitioning from manual to mechanical CPR in clinical use12
- 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
Easily 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 LUCAS device data enables productive post-event review
- Integrate with CODE-STAT data review software
Store and carry with ease
- Battery operation encourages portability
- Lightweight and compact carrying case includes a window for quick battery checks
- External power supply enables prolonged operation and charging
- Easy to clean, with disposable suction cup on compression piston
Make asset management easier*
- Easily 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.
FAQs
Assembled dimensions: 22.0 x 20.5 x 9.4 inches
In carrying case dimensions: 22.8 x 13.0 x 10.2 inches
The rate of compressions is 102 +/- two compressions per minute
The device with battery (no straps) weighs 17.7 pounds. The battery weighs 1.3 pounds.
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.
Connect with an expert
Have feedback about Stryker’s products and services? Visit our product experience page to connect with us.
Thanks!
M0000014366 REV AA
SERVICE AND SUPPORT
Robust support for your team
Technical support
We'll work with you to quickly assess your situation and find the best solution.
ProCare service plans
Focus on saving lives while extending the integrity of your devices with a ProCare service plan.
Product resources
Find a variety of documents including best practices, datasheets and clinical information for easy download.
Training and education
Discover webinars, online and in-person courses and other resources to strengthen your clinical education.
Related products
LIFEPAK 15 V4+ monitor/defibrillator
Learn more
Power-PRO 2
Learn more
ProCuity
A connected and scalable bed for nearly all patient care environments, ProCuity is loaded with advanced wireless technologies for the ultimate in fall prevention.
Learn more
LIFEPAK CR2 defibrillator
Learn more1. 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.
2. 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):437-445.
3. 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.
4. 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].
5. 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
6. 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.
7. Chandler 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.
8. Based on internal and external marketing and financial data
9. If each device is conservatively used 1/month.
10. 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
11. Carmona Jimenez F, Padro PP, Garcia AS, et al., Cerebral flow improvement during CPR with LUCAS, measured by Doppler. Resuscitation. 2011; 82S1:30,AP090. [This study is also published in a longer version, in Spanish language with English abstract, in Emergencias. 2012;24:47-49]11.
12. 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
M0000010065 REV AA