The LUCAS 2 is a mechanical chest compression device that provides consistent, high-quality CPR according to AHA guidelines. It can be used by first responders, medical professionals, and in pre-hospital and in-hospital settings for patients in cardiac arrest. The LUCAS 2 compresses the chest at a rate of 102 times per minute and a depth of 2.1 inches, allowing for full chest recoil between compressions. While it increases perfusion and standardizes compressions, there can be delays in application and it may not fit all patient sizes.

1. LUCAS 2 Chest
Compression System
Presented by:
Brooke Otterson

2. About the LUCAS 2
What it does & how to use it:
• Delivers mechanical chest compressions based on the 2010 AHA CPR
guidelines
• Video on how to use LUCAS 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvNkWpZmdHA
Who can it be used on?
Adult Patients who fit into the device:
• Sternum height of 6.7–11.9 inches (17 – 30.3 cm)
• Maximum chest width: 17.7 inches (45 cm)
The use of LUCAS is not restricted by patient weight.
*Patients with sternum height between 6.7 inches-7.3 inches will receive
linearly increasing depth from 1.5 inches to 2.1 inches.

3. Who Operates
• First responders
• Ambulance personnel
• Nurses
• Physicians
• Other medical staff who have undertaken a
CPR course and received training in how to
use LUCAS 2

4. Implications for Use
Sudden Cardiac Arrest Victims
Pre-hospital
At scene
During transfer- ambulance, helicopter
In-hospital
Emergency Department/Trauma Center/ICU
On Units- code teams
Cath Labs

5. Sudden Cardiac Arrest Statistics
• Nearly 383,000 out-of hospital sudden cardiac arrests occur
each year in the US
o 147.7 out of every 100,000 adults
• 88% of all sudden cardiac arrests occur at home
• Survival from cardiac arrest is noted on national levels to be
less than 8%.
• Survival from cardiac arrest without neurologic insult is
around 1 %.
• Roughly 30 individuals are brought into Long Prairie by
ambulance in sudden cardiac arrest.

6. AHA Guidelines for CPR and LUCAS
2010 AHA Guidelines:
• A compression rate of at least
100/min
• A compression depth of at least
2 inches (5 cm) in adults
• Allowing for complete chest
recoil after each compression
• Minimizing interruptions in chest
compressions
• Avoiding excessive ventilation
LUCAS 2:
• Compression Frequency: 102 ±
2 compressions per minute
• Compression Depth: 2.1 inches
± 0.1 inches
• Complete chest recoil between
compressions
• Minimizes interruptions in chest
compressions once initiated
• Avoiding excessive ventilation by
letting the user know when to
―give breaths‖

7. Advantages Disadvantages
• Increased perfusion to brain and
heart
• Controlled compression rate
• Controlled compression depth
• Complete recoil of chest between
compressions
• Reduces number of CPR
interruptions
• Compressions do not need to be
stopped to deliver defibrillation
• Allow healthcare providers to
focus on other life saving
procedures and to provide for their
own safety.
• Long interruption time
needed to apply device
• Potential for incorrect
application of the device
• One size does not fit all

8. References
American Heart Association, Inc. (2013). Heart disease and stroke statistics—2013 update. Retrieved from
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2012/12/12/CIR.0b013e31828124ad.full.pdf
American Heart Association, Inc. (2010). Highlights of the 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for CPR and
ECC.Retrieved from http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@ecc/documents/downloadable/ucm_317350.pdf
Park, C., Roffi, M., Bendjelid, K., & Bonvini, R. (2013). Percutaneous noncoronary interventions during continuous mechanical
chest compression with the LUCAS-2 device. American Journal Of Emergency Medicine, 31(2), 456.e1-3.
doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.022
Physio-Control, Inc. (2011). Lucas chest compression system: Your partner in in life support. Retrieved from http://www.lucas-
cpr.com/
Physio-Control, Inc. (2013). LUCAS 2 chest compression system. Retrieved from http://www.physio-control.com/LUCAS/
Putzer, G., Braun, P., Zimmermann, A., Pedross, F., Strapazzon, G., Brugger, H., & Paal, P. (2013). LUCAS compared to
manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation is more effective during helicopter rescue-a prospective, randomized, cross-over
manikin study. The American Journal Of Emergency Medicine, 31(2), 384-389. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.018
Trivedi, K., Borovnik-Lesjak, V., & Gazmuri, R. (2013). LUCAS 2(TM) device, compression depth, and the 2010
cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines. American Journal Of Emergency Medicine, 31(7), 1154.e1-2.
doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2013.03.007
Yost, D., Phillips, R., Gonzales, L., Lick, C., Satterlee, P., Levy, M., & ... Niskanen, R. (2012). Assessment of CPR interruptions
from transthoracic impedance during use of the LUCAS™ mechanical chest compression system. Resuscitation, 83(8), 961-
965. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.01.019