<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Buckley, Rita</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rubertsson, Sten</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">LINC: Manual and Mechanical CPR Produce Equivalent Outcomes</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MD Conference Express</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013-10-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14-14</style></pages><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Effective manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be difficult to perform. The LUCAS system is a piston-driven device with a suction cup designed to deliver compressions according to resuscitation guidelines at a depth of 4 to 5 cm. In contrast to manual CPR (M-CPR), defibrillation can be delivered during LUCAS CPR, to minimize interruptions to compressions. A Comparison of Conventional Adult Out-of-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Against a Concept With Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation study [LINC; NCT00609778] sought to examine the efficacy and safety of the LUCAS device in contrast with M-CPR.</style></abstract><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume></record></records></xml>