PURPOSE:Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during flight is challenging and has to be sustained for long periods. In this setting a mechanical-resuscitation-device (MRD) might improve performance. In this study we compared the quality of resuscitation of trained flight attendants practicing either standard basic life support (BLS) or using a MRD in a cabin-simulator. METHODS: Prospective, open, randomized and crossover simulation study. Study participants, competent in standard BLS were trained to use the MRD to deliver both chest compressions and ventilation. 39 teams of two rescuers resuscitated a manikin for 12 min in random order, standard BLS or mechanically assisted resuscitation. Primary outcome was "absolute hands-off time" (sum of all periods during which no hand was placed on the chest minus ventilation time). Various parameters describing the quality of chest compression and ventilation were analysed as secondary outcome parameters. RESULTS: Use of the MRD led to significantly less "absolute hands-off time" (164±33 s vs. 205±42 s, p<0.001). The quality of chest compression was comparable among groups, except for a higher compression rate in the standard BLS group (123±14 min(-1) vs. 95±11 min(-1), p<0.001). Tidal volume was higher in the standard BLS group (0.48±0.14 l vs. 0.34±0.13 l, p<0.001), but we registered fewer gastric inflations in the MRD group (0.4±0.3% vs. 16.6±16.9%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using the MRD resulted in significantly less "absolute hands-off time", but less effective ventilation. The translation of higher chest compression rate into better outcome, as shown in other studies previously, has to be investigated in another human outcome study.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during flight is challenging and has to be sustained for long periods. In this setting a mechanical-resuscitation-device (MRD) might improve performance. In this study we compared the quality of resuscitation of trained flight attendants practicing either standard basic life support (BLS) or using a MRD in a cabin-simulator. METHODS: Prospective, open, randomized and crossover simulation study. Study participants, competent in standard BLS were trained to use the MRD to deliver both chest compressions and ventilation. 39 teams of two rescuers resuscitated a manikin for 12 min in random order, standard BLS or mechanically assisted resuscitation. Primary outcome was "absolute hands-off time" (sum of all periods during which no hand was placed on the chest minus ventilation time). Various parameters describing the quality of chest compression and ventilation were analysed as secondary outcome parameters. RESULTS: Use of the MRD led to significantly less "absolute hands-off time" (164±33 s vs. 205±42 s, p<0.001). The quality of chest compression was comparable among groups, except for a higher compression rate in the standard BLS group (123±14 min(-1) vs. 95±11 min(-1), p<0.001). Tidal volume was higher in the standard BLS group (0.48±0.14 l vs. 0.34±0.13 l, p<0.001), but we registered fewer gastric inflations in the MRD group (0.4±0.3% vs. 16.6±16.9%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using the MRD resulted in significantly less "absolute hands-off time", but less effective ventilation. The translation of higher chest compression rate into better outcome, as shown in other studies previously, has to be investigated in another human outcome study.
Authors: Jochen Hinkelbein; Lennert Böhm; Stefan Braunecker; Harald V Genzwürker; Steffen Kalina; Fabrizio Cirillo; Matthieu Komorowski; Andreas Hohn; Jörg Siedenburg; Michael Bernhard; Ilse Janicke; Christoph Adler; Stefanie Jansen; Eckard Glaser; Pawel Krawczyk; Mirko Miesen; Janusz Andres; Edoardo De Robertis; Christopher Neuhaus Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Christy L Hopkins; Chris Burk; Shane Moser; Jack Meersman; Clair Baldwin; Scott T Youngquist Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.501