Literature DB >> 15919570

A comparison of CPR delivery with various compression-to-ventilation ratios during two-rescuer CPR.

David Hostler1, Guy Guimond, Clifton Callaway.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of chest compressions required for optimal generation of coronary perfusion pressure remains unknown although studies examining compression-to-ventilation ratios higher than 15:2 (C:V) in animals have reported higher C:V to be superior for return of spontaneous circulation and neurologic outcome. We examined human performance of two-rescuer CPR using various C:V.
METHODS: Thirty six EMT-Basic students in their final week of training performed two-rescuer CPR using C:V of 15:2, 30:2, 40:2, 50:2, and 60:2 on a recording resuscitation manikin. Compression and ventilation variables were recorded by computer while the number of pauses for ventilations and the hands-off time (time not spent performing chest compressions) were abstracted by hand. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and significant differences from the standard treatment of C:V = 15:2 were assessed by Tukey's HSD post hoc test.
FINDINGS: The number of compressions delivered per minute increased with increasing C:V while the hands-off time and pauses for ventilations decreased. All comparisons were significantly different from C:V = 15:2 (P < 0.001). The ventilation numbers decreased with increasing C:V although mean minute volume exceeded 1l for all C:V.
INTERPRETATION: A 15:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio when performed during two-rescuer CPR results in 26s of hands off time each minute while only delivering 60 compressions. Alternative C:V ratios of 30:2, 40:2, 50:2, and 60:2 all exceed the AHA recommended 80 compressions/min while still delivering a minute volume in excess of 1l.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15919570     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.11.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  5 in total

1.  [Is automated mechanical reanimation helpful? Putting LUCAS® to the test].

Authors:  U Janssens
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 0.840

2.  Part 12: Education, implementation, and teams: 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations.

Authors:  Jasmeet Soar; Mary E Mancini; Farhan Bhanji; John E Billi; Jennifer Dennett; Judith Finn; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Gavin D Perkins; David L Rodgers; Mary Fran Hazinski; Ian Jacobs; Peter T Morley
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.262

3.  Knowledge and attitudes towards cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation amongst Asian primary health care physicians.

Authors:  Marcus Eh Ong; Susan Yap; Kim P Chan; Papia Sultana; Venkataraman Anantharaman
Journal:  Open Access Emerg Med       Date:  2009-11-16

4.  Chest compression quality, exercise intensity, and energy expenditure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation using compression-to-ventilation ratios of 15:1 or 30:2 or chest compression only: a randomized, crossover manikin study.

Authors:  Se-Jung Kwak; Young-Min Kim; Hee Jin Baek; Se Hong Kim; Hyeon Woo Yim
Journal:  Clin Exp Emerg Med       Date:  2016-09-30

5.  Single Ventilation during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Results in Better Neurological Outcomes in a Porcine Model of Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  Yong Won Kim; Hyung Il Kim; Sung Oh Hwang; Yoon Seop Kim; Gyo Jin An; Kyoung Chul Cha
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.759

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.