The LUCAS (Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System) device, developed originally as the LUCAS mechanical chest compression system) is a medical device designed to perform chest compressions automatically during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
It is used in settings of cardiac arrest (both in-hospital and out-of-hospital) to provide consistent compressions.
The device comprises a back-plate placed under the patient and a piston or compression mechanism that delivers compressions at a set rate and depth.
It is considered a type of “cpr machine” (in the sense of automated chest compression machines) for emergency use.
Versions of LUCAS (including LUCAS 3) are battery-powered and designed for use during transport and in procedural settings (e.g., catheter lab) as well as standard CPR.
The concept for the LUCAS device originated in the late 1990s, when Norwegian inventor Willy Vistung observed paramedics struggling to perform manual CPR in a moving ambulance. He envisioned a pneumatic system capable of delivering automatic, consistent chest compressions. Cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Stig Steen at Lund University Hospital supported Vistung’s idea, and after Vistung’s death, Swedish entrepreneur Lars Sunnanväder collaborated with Steen to refine and produce the first functional prototypein 2000.
The first-generation LUCAS device, powered pneumatically, entered use in Swedish ambulances in 2003. A second-generation model, offering both pneumatic and battery-powered options, was released worldwide in 2009. The latest model, the LUCAS 3, featuring advanced electronics and wireless connectivity, became commercially available in 2016.
Setup - The responder places the back plate under the patient (often by sliding it under the torso) and positions the piston section over the chest.
Compression cycle - The device then applies chest compressions at a consistent rate (e.g., approximately 100 compressions per minute) and consistent depth (the manufacturer states ~5.3 cm for LUCAS 3) to maintain blood flow during cardiac arrest.
Continuous delivery - Unlike manual CPR, which can suffer fatigue, variation in depth or rate, or interruptions, the machine can deliver compressions more uniformly and during movement (ambulance transport, etc.).
Other tasks freed – Because the machine is performing compressions, medical staff can focus on other resuscitation tasks (airway, defibrillation, medications).
The LUCAS device is used for both out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) settings.
It is particularly considered in situations where manual CPR may be difficult to maintain at high quality (e.g., during patient transport, in the catheterisation lab, during prolonged resuscitation).
Some emergency medical systems include the device as part of advanced life support protocols, especially when continuous compressions and minimal interruption are key.
The body of research on mechanical CPR devices, including LUCAS, is substantial, but inconclusive. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews suggest no clear superiority of mechanical over high-quality manual CPR in most settings.
A meta-analysis found that among OHCA patients using LUCAS vs. manual CPR, outcomes such as return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, discharge, or 30-day survival were not significantly different.
An umbrella review (covering studies to February 2024) concluded that mechanical CPR (including devices like LUCAS) did not consistently improve ROSC, survival to discharge, or neurological outcomes compared to manual CPR. 2
Some newer studies have raised concerns about adverse events associated with mechanical CPR devices. For example, one 2025 review reported “significantly reduced 30-day survival among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients treated with the device.” 3
While the LUCAS device reliably delivers consistent compressions (which is beneficial in theory), in practice the clinical benefit (in terms of improved survival or neurological outcome) remains unproven in broad application.
The device may still offer advantages in specific scenarios where manual CPR quality is compromised (e.g., moving ambulance, very prolonged resuscitation, limited staffing). Some authors point to this as the likely useful niche. 2
Importantly, technique, timing (when device is applied), interruption for setup, and the overall resuscitation system/context matter a lot. Some studies suggest delays or setup issues may offset theoretical benefits.
High cost compared to manual CPR. In India, a listing for the “LUCAS3 Chest Compression System” showed a price of ₹ 14,00,000 (approx.) for one unit. Because of the higher cost, the decision to procure a LUCAS device often depends on institutional volume, expected use cases (e.g., ambulance transport service, catheter lab with need for prolonged CPR), and budget availability.
Setup time or interruption during transition to device may reduce effectiveness. Studies suggest that installation may delay compressions or cause gaps.
Evidence does not show clear improvement in key outcomes (survival, neurological recovery) in many cases.
The device is not a substitute for early defibrillation, high-quality airway/ventilation, and good resuscitation systems – it is rather a tool within a broader system.
Some risk of device-related complications (e.g., injury from compressions) have also been reported.
References
Gyory, Robert A., Scott E. Buchle, David Rodgers, and Jeffrey S. Lubin. “The Efficacy of LUCAS in Prehospital Cardiac Arrest Scenarios: A Crossover Mannequin Study.” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 18, no. 3 (2017): 437–45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5391893/
Manual Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR): An Umbrella Review of Contemporary Systematic Reviews and More.” Critical Care 28, no. 1 (2024): 259. doi:10.1186/s13054-024-05037-4. https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-024-05037-4
Ali, S. S., et al. “Acute Clinical Adverse Events Associated with the LUCAS Chest Compression System.” Resuscitation Plus 26 (October 2025): 101139. doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101139. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425002760
“LUCAS Device for CPR.” AED CPR. Accessed 12th November 2025. https://www.aedcpr.com/articles/lucas-device-for-cpr/.
