Quality between mechanical compression on reducible stretcher versus manual compression on standard stretcher in small elevator - 25/07/16
, Ki Jeong Hong, MD b, ⁎ , Shin Sang Do, MD, PhD c , Chu Hyun Kim, MD d , Sung Wook Song, MD e , Kyoung Jun Song, MD, PhD c , Young Sun Ro, MD, DrPH f , Ki Ok Ahn, MD, PhD f , Dayea Beatrice Jang, MPH f Abstract |
Objectives |
Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during vertical transport in small elevators using standard stretcher for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest can raise concerns with diminishing quality. Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher (RS-CPR) that can be shortened in the length was tested to compare the CPR quality with manual CPR on a standard stretcher (SS-CPR).
Methods |
A randomized crossover manikin simulation was designed. Three teams of emergency medical technicians were recruited to perform serial CPR simulations using two different protocols (RS-CPR and SS-CPR) according to a randomization; the first 6 minutes of manual CPR at the scene was identical for both scenarios and two different protocols during vertical transport in a small elevator followed on a basis of cross-over assignment. The LUCAS-2 Chest Compression System (Zolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was used for RS-CPR. CPR quality was measured using a resuscitation manikin (Resusci Anne QCPR, Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in terms of no flow fraction, compression depth, and rate (median and IQR).
Results |
A total of 42 simulations were analyzed. CPR quality did not differ significantly at the scene. No flow fraction (%) was significantly lower when the stretcher was moving in RS-CPR then SS-CPR (36.0 (33.8-38.7) vs 44.0 (36.8-54.4), P< .01). RS-CPR showed significantly better quality than SS-CPR; 93.2 (50.6-95.6) vs 14.8 (0-20.8) for adequate depth (P< 0.01), and 97.5 (96.6-98.2) vs 68.9(43.4-78.5) for adequate rate (P< .01).
Conclusion |
Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher during vertical transport showed significant improvement in CPR quality in terms of no-flow fraction, compression depth, and rate compared with manual CPR on a standard stretcher.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| ☆ | Funding Acknowledgement: This study was supported by the “Fire Fighting Safety and 119 Rescue Technology Research and Development Program” funded by the Ministry of Public Safety and Security (Grant No.: NEMA-NextGeneration-2014-54). |
Vol 34 - N° 8
P. 1604-1609 - août 2016 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- ED pharmacist monitoring of provider antibiotic selection aids appropriate treatment for outpatient UTI
- Erin Lingenfelter, Zachary Drapkin, Kelly Fritz, Scott Youngquist, Troy Madsen, Megan Fix
- STEMI notification by EMS predicts shorter door-to-balloon time and smaller infarct size
- Akihiro Kobayashi, Naoki Misumida, Shunsuke Aoi, Eric Steinberg, Kathleen Kearney, John T. Fox, Yumiko Kanei
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?