PURPOSE: The goal of this randomized, open, controlled crossover manikin study was to compare the performance of "Animax", a manually operated hand-powered mechanical resuscitation device (MRD) to standard single rescuer basic life support (BLS). METHODS: Following training, 80 medical students performed eitherstandard BLS or used an MRD for 12 min in random order. We compared the quality of chest compressions (effective compressions, compression depth and rate, absolute hands-off time, hand position, decompression), and of ventilation including the number of gastric inflations. An effective compression was defined as a compression performed with correct depth, hand position and decompression. RESULTS: The use of the MRD resulted in a significantly higher number of effective compressions compared to standard BLS (67 ± 34 vs. 41 ± 34%, p<0.001). In a comparison with standard BLS, the use of the MRD resulted in less absolute hands-off time (264 ± 57 vs. 79 ± 40 s, p<0.001) and in a higher minute-volume (1.86 ± 0.7 vs. 1.62 ± 0.7 l, p=0.020). However, ventilation volumes were below the 2005 ERC guidelines for both methods. Gastric inflations occurred only in 0 ± 0.1% with the MRD compared to 3 ± 7% during standard BLS (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Single rescuer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation with the manually operated MRD was superior to standard BLS regarding chest compressions in this simulation study. The MRD delivered a higher minute-volume but did not achieve the recommended minimal volume. Further clinical studies are needed to test the MRD's safety and efficacy in patients.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The goal of this randomized, open, controlled crossover manikin study was to compare the performance of "Animax", a manually operated hand-powered mechanical resuscitation device (MRD) to standard single rescuer basic life support (BLS). METHODS: Following training, 80 medical students performed either standard BLS or used an MRD for 12 min in random order. We compared the quality of chest compressions (effective compressions, compression depth and rate, absolute hands-off time, hand position, decompression), and of ventilation including the number of gastric inflations. An effective compression was defined as a compression performed with correct depth, hand position and decompression. RESULTS: The use of the MRD resulted in a significantly higher number of effective compressions compared to standard BLS (67 ± 34 vs. 41 ± 34%, p<0.001). In a comparison with standard BLS, the use of the MRD resulted in less absolute hands-off time (264 ± 57 vs. 79 ± 40 s, p<0.001) and in a higher minute-volume (1.86 ± 0.7 vs. 1.62 ± 0.7 l, p=0.020). However, ventilation volumes were below the 2005 ERC guidelines for both methods. Gastric inflations occurred only in 0 ± 0.1% with the MRD compared to 3 ± 7% during standard BLS (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Single rescuer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation with the manually operated MRD was superior to standard BLS regarding chest compressions in this simulation study. The MRD delivered a higher minute-volume but did not achieve the recommended minimal volume. Further clinical studies are needed to test the MRD's safety and efficacy in patients.
Authors: Noemi Pavo; Georg Goliasch; Franz Josef Nierscher; Dominik Stumpf; Moritz Haugk; Jan Breckwoldt; Kurt Ruetzler; Robert Greif; Henrik Fischer Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Amir Vahedian-Azimi; Mohammadreza Hajiesmaeili; Ali Amirsavadkouhi; Hamidreza Jamaati; Morteza Izadi; Seyed J Madani; Seyed M R Hashemian; Andrew C Miller Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 9.097