PURPOSE: Chest compressions are often performed at a variable rate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The effect of compression rate on other chest compression quality variables (compression depth, duty-cycle, leaning, performance decay over time) is unknown. This randomised controlled cross-over manikin study examined the effect of different compression rates on the other chest compression quality variables. METHODS: Twenty healthcare professionals performed 2 min of continuous compressions on an instrumented manikin at rates of 80, 100, 120, 140 and 160 min(-1) in a random order. An electronic metronome was used to guide compression rate. Compression data were analysed by repeated measures ANOVA and are presented as mean (SD). Non-parametric data was analysed by Friedman test. RESULTS: At faster compression rates there were significant improvements in the number of compressions delivered (160(2) at 80 min(-1) vs. 312(13) compressions at 160 min(-1), P<0.001); and compression duty-cycle (43(6)% at 80 min(-1) vs. 50(7)% at 160 min(-1), P<0.001). This was at the cost of a significant reduction in compression depth (39.5(10)mm at 80 min(-1) vs. 34.5(11)mm at 160 min(-1), P<0.001); and earlier decay in compression quality (median decay point 120 s at 80 min(-1) vs. 40s at 160 min(-1), P<0.001). Additionally not all participants achieved the target rate (100% at 80 min(-1) vs. 70% at 160 min(-1)). Rates above 120 min(-1) had the greatest impact on reducing chest compression quality. CONCLUSIONS: For Guidelines 2005 trained rescuers, a chest compression rate of 100-120 min(-1) for 2 min is feasible whilst maintaining adequate chest compression quality in terms of depth, duty-cycle, leaning, and decay in compression performance. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of the Guidelines 2010 recommendation for deeper and faster chest compressions. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Chest compressions are often performed at a variable rate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The effect of compression rate on other chest compression quality variables (compression depth, duty-cycle, leaning, performance decay over time) is unknown. This randomised controlled cross-over manikin study examined the effect of different compression rates on the other chest compression quality variables. METHODS: Twenty healthcare professionals performed 2 min of continuous compressions on an instrumented manikin at rates of 80, 100, 120, 140 and 160 min(-1) in a random order. An electronic metronome was used to guide compression rate. Compression data were analysed by repeated measures ANOVA and are presented as mean (SD). Non-parametric data was analysed by Friedman test. RESULTS: At faster compression rates there were significant improvements in the number of compressions delivered (160(2) at 80 min(-1) vs. 312(13) compressions at 160 min(-1), P<0.001); and compression duty-cycle (43(6)% at 80 min(-1) vs. 50(7)% at 160 min(-1), P<0.001). This was at the cost of a significant reduction in compression depth (39.5(10)mm at 80 min(-1) vs. 34.5(11)mm at 160 min(-1), P<0.001); and earlier decay in compression quality (median decay point 120 s at 80 min(-1) vs. 40s at 160 min(-1), P<0.001). Additionally not all participants achieved the target rate (100% at 80 min(-1) vs. 70% at 160 min(-1)). Rates above 120 min(-1) had the greatest impact on reducing chest compression quality. CONCLUSIONS: For Guidelines 2005 trained rescuers, a chest compression rate of 100-120 min(-1) for 2 min is feasible whilst maintaining adequate chest compression quality in terms of depth, duty-cycle, leaning, and decay in compression performance. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of the Guidelines 2010 recommendation for deeper and faster chest compressions. Copyright Â
Authors: Jacek Smereka; Łukasz Iskrzycki; Elżbieta Makomaska-Szaroszyk; Karol Bielski; Michael Frass; Oliver Robak; Kurt Ruetzler; Michael Czekajło; Antonio Rodríguez-Núnez; Jesús López-Herce; Łukasz Szarpak Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Jolanta Majer; Milosz J Jaguszewski; Michael Frass; Marcin Leskiewicz; Jacek Smereka; Jerzy R Ładny; Oliver Robak; Łukasz Szarpak Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Silvana Arciniegas Rodriguez; Robert M Sutton; Marc D Berg; Akira Nishisaki; Matthew Maltese; Peter A Meaney; Dana E Niles; Jessica Leffelman; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Thomas Kingston; Nicholas B Tiller; Elle Partington; Mukhtar Ahmed; Gareth Jones; Mark I Johnson; Nigel A Callender Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Je Sung You; Sung Phil Chung; Chul Ho Chang; Incheol Park; Hye Sun Lee; SeungHo Kim; Hahn Shick Lee Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 2.740