Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) is a mechanism that is widely known to sustain life in a critical patient
suffering from cardiac arrest but mechanical CPR has been shown to have increased associated risks and draw-
backs. The two types of mCPR devices discussed in this paper are the Zoll Autopulse and the Stryker LUCAS.
We endeavor to discuss how a proposed solution to manual CPR may not be a solution at all, but rather a means
to cause more harm than good to the patient. This paper examines the efficacy of manual CPR compared to
mCPR while incorporating evidence from various case studies and reports. By examining retrospective studies
and case reports, we have elucidated that mCPR is a medical technique that causes unnecessary harm whereas
manual CPR may not cause such harm. In our discussion, we have identified alarming problems associated with
mCPR, and in the future, more research is needed to definitively show whether there is space for it in the med-
ical field for practical use. Future studies should continue to target efficacy of both types of CPR while imple-
menting studies to see if proper training may make mCPR more safe.
