Autopulse Vs Lucas 2 or 3 Device

[seadog]

Greetings everyone,

While I've had an opportunity to look at documentation from ZOLL and Physio-Control on their devices, I wanted to hear from those you who have actually used these devices in the field. My agency is in the process of deciding which one to get and 20 g's we want to make certain that get the best of the two. What has your experience been with them, good and or bad? Thanks for your feedback in advanced!

 

[Summit]

I've seen the Lucas 2 in action and trained on it once. I've trained and played with the Autopulse a bit.

I like the Autopulse both for its circumferential compression and low profile (important for SAR/HEMS).

The biggest thing with either device is to train hard on getting the thing on with absolute minimum interruption of compression.

Consider what your partner agencies and facilities have and use already, because their familiarity can be important, especially if you are sending the patient to PCI. Otherwise, they'd have to train on your device (or transition to manual or their device) or you'll have to stick around if you bring in a CPR patient. You'll need to consider what your transport of arrest protocol is and may change to with the inclusion of mechanical CPR (e.g., hypothermic arrest, cold water drowning, electrocution, avalanche, STEMI arrest to PCI). Logistics also play in here if receiving facilities have the same device and can load fresh batteries that they have on hand. I don't know if Lucas can operate off wall power, but Autopulse cannot.

 

[NPO]

I've used the Lucas 2 quite a bit and I do really like it. I've used the Auto pulse a little, and didn't have strong feelings either way.

If you're not already invested in any system, the Lucas 3 has several small improvements that make it a nice product over the 2, but make it hard to justify an "upgrade" from the 2 to the 3.

 

[seadog]

I've used the Lucas 2 quite a bit and I do really like it. I've used the Auto pulse a little, and didn't have strong feelings either way.

If you're not already invested in any system, the Lucas 3 has several small improvements that make it a nice product over the 2, but make it hard to justify an "upgrade" from the 2 to the 3.

Ok. This would be our first investment in compression devices and a first for this area.

 

[seadog]

I've seen the Lucas 2 in action and trained on it once. I've trained and played with the Autopulse a bit.

I like the Autopulse both for its circumferential compression and low profile (important for SAR/HEMS).

The biggest thing with either device is to train hard on getting the thing on with absolute minimum interruption of compression.

Consider what your partner agencies and facilities have and use already, because their familiarity can be important, especially if you are sending the patient to PCI. Otherwise, they'd have to train on your device (or transition to manual or their device) or you'll have to stick around if you bring in a CPR patient. You'll need to consider what your transport of arrest protocol is and may change to with the inclusion of mechanical CPR (e.g., hypothermic arrest, cold water drowning, electrocution, avalanche, STEMI arrest to PCI). Logistics also play in here if receiving facilities have the same device and can load fresh batteries that they have on hand. I don't know if Lucas can operate off wall power, but Autopulse cannot.

From what I see on you tube id agree that lots of training has to be involved to minimize mistakes and spending too much time setting it up. We will be the first in this area to purchase it.