OBJECTIVE: To determine if the over-the-head two-thumb encircling technique (OTTT) provides better quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than the conventional two-finger technique (TFT) when performed by a lone rescuer in an in-hospital infant cardiac arrest setting. METHODS: This prospective, randomised crossover design study recruited 50 nurses who voluntarily performed lone rescuer infant CPR for 2 min on a manikin. Participants who performed OTTT stood at the head of the manikin to compress the chest and provide bag-valve mask ventilations, whereas those who performed TFT stood by the side of the manikin to compress the chest and provide pocket-mask ventilations. Mean hands-off time, mean compression depths and rates, proportion of effective compressions and complete recoil, and fatigue score changes were assessed during the test, and a survey on the ease of use of the techniques was conducted after the test. RESULTS:Hands-off time, total ventilation volume and number of ventilations were not significantly different between the two techniques. OTTT resulted in greater depth of compressions (p<0.001), greater proportion of effective compressions (p<0.001), smaller proportion of complete recoil (p=0.001), and smaller fatigue score change (p=0.003) than TFT. In addition, subjects reported that compression, ventilation and changing compression to ventilation were easier using OTTT than TFT. CONCLUSIONS: OTTT performed by a lone rescuer in an in-hospital infant cardiac arrest setting resulted in greater compression depth, with no increase in hands-off time, compared with TFT. OTTT may therefore be a suitable alternative to TFT in the in-hospital infant cardiac arrest setting. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the over-the-head two-thumb encircling technique (OTTT) provides better quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than the conventional two-finger technique (TFT) when performed by a lone rescuer in an in-hospital infantcardiac arrest setting. METHODS: This prospective, randomised crossover design study recruited 50 nurses who voluntarily performed lone rescuer infant CPR for 2 min on a manikin. Participants who performed OTTT stood at the head of the manikin to compress the chest and provide bag-valve mask ventilations, whereas those who performed TFT stood by the side of the manikin to compress the chest and provide pocket-mask ventilations. Mean hands-off time, mean compression depths and rates, proportion of effective compressions and complete recoil, and fatigue score changes were assessed during the test, and a survey on the ease of use of the techniques was conducted after the test. RESULTS: Hands-off time, total ventilation volume and number of ventilations were not significantly different between the two techniques. OTTT resulted in greater depth of compressions (p<0.001), greater proportion of effective compressions (p<0.001), smaller proportion of complete recoil (p=0.001), and smaller fatigue score change (p=0.003) than TFT. In addition, subjects reported that compression, ventilation and changing compression to ventilation were easier using OTTT than TFT. CONCLUSIONS: OTTT performed by a lone rescuer in an in-hospital infantcardiac arrest setting resulted in greater compression depth, with no increase in hands-off time, compared with TFT. OTTT may therefore be a suitable alternative to TFT in the in-hospital infantcardiac arrest setting. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Young Sinn Kim; Je Hyeok Oh; Chan Woong Kim; Sung Eun Kim; Dong Hoon Lee; Jun Young Hong Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Chun-Yu Chang; Po-Chen Lin; Yung-Jiun Chien; Chien-Sheng Chen; Meng-Yu Wu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 3.390