Cargando…

Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model

AIM OF THE STUDY: Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rössler, Bernhard, Goschin, Julius, Maleczek, Mathias, Piringer, Felix, Thell, Rainer, Mittlböck, Martina, Schebesta, Karl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7017996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228702
_version_ 1783497281186562048
author Rössler, Bernhard
Goschin, Julius
Maleczek, Mathias
Piringer, Felix
Thell, Rainer
Mittlböck, Martina
Schebesta, Karl
author_facet Rössler, Bernhard
Goschin, Julius
Maleczek, Mathias
Piringer, Felix
Thell, Rainer
Mittlböck, Martina
Schebesta, Karl
author_sort Rössler, Bernhard
collection PubMed
description AIM OF THE STUDY: Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm. METHODS: With the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs. RESULTS: The total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21–53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Standard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7017996
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70179962020-02-26 Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model Rössler, Bernhard Goschin, Julius Maleczek, Mathias Piringer, Felix Thell, Rainer Mittlböck, Martina Schebesta, Karl PLoS One Research Article AIM OF THE STUDY: Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm. METHODS: With the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs. RESULTS: The total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21–53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Standard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training. Public Library of Science 2020-02-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7017996/ /pubmed/32053634 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228702 Text en © 2020 Rössler et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rössler, Bernhard
Goschin, Julius
Maleczek, Mathias
Piringer, Felix
Thell, Rainer
Mittlböck, Martina
Schebesta, Karl
Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
title Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
title_full Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
title_fullStr Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
title_full_unstemmed Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
title_short Providing the best chest compression quality: Standard CPR versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
title_sort providing the best chest compression quality: standard cpr versus chest compressions only in a bystander resuscitation model
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7017996/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32053634
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228702
work_keys_str_mv AT rosslerbernhard providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel
AT goschinjulius providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel
AT maleczekmathias providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel
AT piringerfelix providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel
AT thellrainer providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel
AT mittlbockmartina providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel
AT schebestakarl providingthebestchestcompressionqualitystandardcprversuschestcompressionsonlyinabystanderresuscitationmodel