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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |