Objective:
This study aimed to compare the various factors of LUCAS and AutoPulse devices used for patients struggling with cardiac arrest.
Methods:
A randomized crossover study with 24 emergency medical service (EMS) providers were recruited for this research. Such studies performed CPR with both devices on a manikin in a simulated ambulance.
Results:
The results showed that the AutoPulse device provides a faster response and is easy to apply with less user interaction than LUCAS. Moreover, the AutoPulse device also resulted in minimized workload, higher satisfaction, and maximum situation awareness compared with LUCAS. However, proper information must be presented between the two devices according to the chest compression quality, hemodynamic parameters, and ventilation quality.
Conclusion:
AutoPulse had gained a clear advantage over LUCAS regarding workload, user performance, situation awareness, and satisfaction of the EMS providers.
Key words: LUCAS, AutoPulse, Automatic Chest compression devices, user centered, cardiac arrest.
|
