Cargando…

Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?

OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Şan, İshak, Bekgöz, Burak, Ergin, Mehmet, Usul, Eren
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8091997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33969242
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.309135
_version_ 1783687579247312896
author Şan, İshak
Bekgöz, Burak
Ergin, Mehmet
Usul, Eren
author_facet Şan, İshak
Bekgöz, Burak
Ergin, Mehmet
Usul, Eren
author_sort Şan, İshak
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality. METHODS: This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system. RESULTS: The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%–75% = 117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 102.1–102.7) (P < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%–75% = 32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 51.8–55.0) (P < 0.001). The median hands-off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25–75 = 5.0%–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 8.2%–12.5%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8091997
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80919972021-05-06 Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport? Şan, İshak Bekgöz, Burak Ergin, Mehmet Usul, Eren Turk J Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVES: Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality. METHODS: This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system. RESULTS: The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%–75% = 117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 102.1–102.7) (P < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%–75% = 32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 51.8–55.0) (P < 0.001). The median hands-off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25–75 = 5.0%–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%–75% = 8.2%–12.5%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8091997/ /pubmed/33969242 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.309135 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Şan, İshak
Bekgöz, Burak
Ergin, Mehmet
Usul, Eren
Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
title Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
title_full Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
title_fullStr Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
title_full_unstemmed Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
title_short Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
title_sort manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: which one is more effective during ambulance transport?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8091997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33969242
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.309135
work_keys_str_mv AT sanishak manualcardiopulmonaryresuscitationversusmechanicalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwhichoneismoreeffectiveduringambulancetransport
AT bekgozburak manualcardiopulmonaryresuscitationversusmechanicalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwhichoneismoreeffectiveduringambulancetransport
AT erginmehmet manualcardiopulmonaryresuscitationversusmechanicalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwhichoneismoreeffectiveduringambulancetransport
AT usuleren manualcardiopulmonaryresuscitationversusmechanicalcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwhichoneismoreeffectiveduringambulancetransport