AIM: To examine the current status and problems of resuscitation management in Japan as demonstrated at the 2006 and 2007 Osaka Senri medical rallies. METHODS: Using manikins, the quality of resuscitation was evaluated in 33 teams that participated in the medical rallies. The challenge was to deliver defibrillation shocks for ventricular fibrillation; data were recorded using the Laerdal PC Skill Reporting System (Norway). The teams were first subjectively (visually) evaluated by a panel of judges and these evaluations were later reaffirmed using video records. RESULTS: An approximately 30s delay was observed between the time of contact and initiation of chest compression in the teams that adopted the American Heart Association (AHA) method compared with those that adopted the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) method. Although the overall quality of chest compressions was very good, in several instances, the hand positions were inappropriate and complete chest recoil was not achieved. The left paddle was incorrectly positioned by all teams. Only 15.8% of the teams were able to deliver shocks with less than 10s of interruption between the chest compressions. Regarding interruption of chest compressions at confirmation of correct tracheal tube placement, among the eight teams that adopted the AHA method, pauses of more than 10s were confirmed in five (62.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in performance between the AHA and ERC methods were observed. The ERC guidelines were more rational and suitable in terms of actual application than the AHA guidelines.
AIM: To examine the current status and problems of resuscitation management in Japan as demonstrated at the 2006 and 2007 Osaka Senri medical rallies. METHODS: Using manikins, the quality of resuscitation was evaluated in 33 teams that participated in the medical rallies. The challenge was to deliver defibrillation shocks for ventricular fibrillation; data were recorded using the Laerdal PC Skill Reporting System (Norway). The teams were first subjectively (visually) evaluated by a panel of judges and these evaluations were later reaffirmed using video records. RESULTS: An approximately 30s delay was observed between the time of contact and initiation of chest compression in the teams that adopted the American Heart Association (AHA) method compared with those that adopted the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) method. Although the overall quality of chest compressions was very good, in several instances, the hand positions were inappropriate and complete chest recoil was not achieved. The left paddle was incorrectly positioned by all teams. Only 15.8% of the teams were able to deliver shocks with less than 10s of interruption between the chest compressions. Regarding interruption of chest compressions at confirmation of correct tracheal tube placement, among the eight teams that adopted the AHA method, pauses of more than 10s were confirmed in five (62.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in performance between the AHA and ERC methods were observed. The ERC guidelines were more rational and suitable in terms of actual application than the AHA guidelines.
Authors: Marc D Berg; Stephen M Schexnayder; Leon Chameides; Mark Terry; Aaron Donoghue; Robert W Hickey; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Mary Fran Hazinski Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marc D Berg; Stephen M Schexnayder; Leon Chameides; Mark Terry; Aaron Donoghue; Robert W Hickey; Robert A Berg; Robert M Sutton; Mary Fran Hazinski Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Theresa M Olasveengen; Mary E Mancini; Gavin D Perkins; Suzanne Avis; Steven Brooks; Maaret Castrén; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Keith Couper; Raffo Escalante; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Kevin K C Hung; Peter Kudenchuk; Swee Han Lim; Chika Nishiyama; Giuseppe Ristagno; Federico Semeraro; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Christian Vaillancourt; Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262