BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) of poor quality is associated with worsened outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of CPR delivered on the floor with the quality of CPR delivered on a moving stretcher. The authors hypothesized that CPR performed on the floor would be superior to that performed on a moving stretcher. METHODS: A randomized, crossover experimental design was used. Subjects included emergency medical technician students, paramedic students, and emergency medicine residents. Two-member teams were randomly assigned to perform two-rescuer CPR on a manikin either on the floor or on a moving stretcher. After a 5-minute rest, the teams performed CPR under the opposite condition. Compression and ventilation data were collected using a recording resuscitation manikin. Dependent variables were compression depth, compression rate per minute, percentage of correct chest compressions, tidal volume, and percentage of correct ventilations. Data were compared using two-tailed paired t-test. RESULTS:Sixty-two subjects completed the study. The mean compression depth performed on the floor (39 +/- 9 mm) was greater than that on a moving stretcher (28 +/- 9 mm) (p < 0.001). The mean rates of chest compressions on the floor (110 +/- 17 beats/min) and on a moving stretcher (113 +/- 21 beats/min) were not different (p = 0.49). The percentage of correct compressions performed on the floor (54% +/- 40%) exceeded that on a moving stretcher (21% +/- 29%)(p < 0.001). The percentage of correct ventilations performed on the floor (43% +/- 26%) was greater than that on a moving stretcher (24% +/- 21%)(p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Chest compression and ventilation quality of CPR performed on the floor was superior to that of CPR performed on a moving stretcher in this manikin model. The quality of CPR while moving was significantly compromised.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) of poor quality is associated with worsened outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of CPR delivered on the floor with the quality of CPR delivered on a moving stretcher. The authors hypothesized that CPR performed on the floor would be superior to that performed on a moving stretcher. METHODS: A randomized, crossover experimental design was used. Subjects included emergency medical technician students, paramedic students, and emergency medicine residents. Two-member teams were randomly assigned to perform two-rescuer CPR on a manikin either on the floor or on a moving stretcher. After a 5-minute rest, the teams performed CPR under the opposite condition. Compression and ventilation data were collected using a recording resuscitation manikin. Dependent variables were compression depth, compression rate per minute, percentage of correct chest compressions, tidal volume, and percentage of correct ventilations. Data were compared using two-tailed paired t-test. RESULTS: Sixty-two subjects completed the study. The mean compression depth performed on the floor (39 +/- 9 mm) was greater than that on a moving stretcher (28 +/- 9 mm) (p < 0.001). The mean rates of chest compressions on the floor (110 +/- 17 beats/min) and on a moving stretcher (113 +/- 21 beats/min) were not different (p = 0.49). The percentage of correct compressions performed on the floor (54% +/- 40%) exceeded that on a moving stretcher (21% +/- 29%)(p < 0.001). The percentage of correct ventilations performed on the floor (43% +/- 26%) was greater than that on a moving stretcher (24% +/- 21%)(p < 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Chest compression and ventilation quality of CPR performed on the floor was superior to that of CPR performed on a moving stretcher in this manikin model. The quality of CPR while moving was significantly compromised.