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.
Deploy easily and quickly
Configure to your protocols within guidelines*
Easily access and share post-event data*
Store and carry with ease
Make asset management easier*
*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.
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.
SERVICE AND SUPPORT
Robust support for your team
The industry's first connected ambulance cot.Learn more
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
1. 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