Literature DB >> 19576676

Alternating providers during continuous chest compressions for cardiac arrest: every minute or every two minutes?

Sander Manders1, Femke E C Geijsel.   

Abstract

Studies have shown that the quality of chest compressions for cardiac arrest decreases markedly after only a brief time. This is thought to be an important contributor to an adverse outcome of resuscitation, which has led to recommendations to alternate chest compression providers. This study compared alternating rescuers every 1 min versus every 2 min in a manikin simulation. Forty pairs of rescuers were randomly assigned to either scenario. The main outcome measure was the number of effective compressions. The results were analysed using one-way analysis of variance. Over the full 8 min, no significant difference was found in the number of effective chest compressions (p=0.707). Furthermore, no significant difference was found when comparing each 2 min block. An explanation for this may be that the compressions lost due to fatigue in the 2 min scenario are approximately offset by compressions lost due to the practicalities of changing over. Power calculations with these results show that an unfeasibly large number of scenarios would be needed to definitively demonstrate the superiority of one of the scenarios. It seems reasonable to alternate chest compression providers every 2 min, to prevent the loss of effective compressions due to fatigue and to minimise interruptions of chest compressions. The ideal time to do this would be during the rhythm and pulse check as dictated by current guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19576676     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.05.014

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


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  Neurologic outcomes of prehospital mechanical chest compression device use during transportation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a multicenter observational study.

Authors:  Chanhong Min; Dong Eun Lee; Hyun Wook Ryoo; Haewon Jung; Jae Wan Cho; Yun Jeong Kim; Jae Yun Ahn; Jungbae Park; You Ho Mun; Tae Chang Jang; Sang-Chan Jin
Journal:  Clin Exp Emerg Med       Date:  2022-08-31

3.  Differences in Hands-off Time According to the Position of a Second Rescuer When Switching Compression in Pre-hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Provided by Two Bystanders: A Randomized, Controlled, Parallel Study.

Authors:  Yong Hwan Kim; Jun Ho Lee; Dong Woo Lee; Kwang Won Cho; Mun Ju Kang; Yang Weon Kim; Kyoung Yul Lee; Young Hwan Lee; Jin Joo Kim; Seong Youn Hwang
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 2.153

4.  Technique for chest compressions in adult CPR.

Authors:  Taufiek K Rajab; Charles N Pozner; Claudius Conrad; Lawrence H Cohn; Jan D Schmitto
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2011-12-10       Impact factor: 5.469

5.  Comparison of CPR quality and rescuer fatigue between standard 30:2 CPR and chest compression-only CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial.

Authors:  Jonghwan Shin; Seong Youn Hwang; Hui Jai Lee; Chang Je Park; Yong Joon Kim; Yeong Ju Son; Ji Seon Seo; Jin Joo Kim; Jung Eun Lee; In Mo Lee; Bong Yeun Koh; Sung Gi Hong
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Chest Compression With Personal Protective Equipment During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study.

Authors:  Jie Chen; Kai-Zhi Lu; Bin Yi; Yan Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  Team Size and Stretching-Exercise Effects on Simulated Chest Compression Performance and Exertion.

Authors:  Jessica C Schoen; Jason T Machan; Max Dannecker; Leo Kobayashi
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2017-09-11

8.  Is a mechanical-assist device better than manual chest compression? A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chaiyaporn Yuksen; Thidathit Prachanukool; Kasamon Aramvanitch; Nuttamon Thongwichit; Kittisak Sawanyawisuth; Yuwares Sittichanbuncha
Journal:  Open Access Emerg Med       Date:  2017-08-29

9.  Adult Basic Life Support: International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

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

10.  Comparison between an instructor-led course and training using a voice advisory manikin in initial cardiopulmonary resuscitation skill acquisition.

Authors:  Mun Ki Min; Seok Ran Yeom; Ji Ho Ryu; Yong In Kim; Maeng Real Park; Sang Kyoon Han; Seong Hwa Lee; Sung Wook Park; Soon Chang Park
Journal:  Clin Exp Emerg Med       Date:  2016-09-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.