Paul Davey1, Chris Whatman, Bridget Dicker. 1. From the Auckland University of Technology, Department of Paramedicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Environmental Science (P.D., C.W., B.D.), Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been an increased emphasis on the quality of chest compressions as a part of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle of care for recent times. During CPR training, chest compression quality parameters can be measured directly from sensors within a manikin or from external devices placed on the manikin chest that use accelerometer-based technology. The aim of this study was to compare external chest compression data from the manikin-based Laerdal Skill Reporter (LSR) and the accelerometer-based Q-CPR technology, incorporated into the Philips MRx defibrillator, during CPR on a single Resusci Anne Simulator manikin. METHODS: Each paramedic (n = 15) performed 2 sessions of 2 minutes of chest compressions, with a 2-minute rest period in between sessions. Both over-the-head and from-the-side positions were used on a single manikin. The quality of chest compressions were concurrently measured using both LSR and Philips MRx Q-CPR accelerometer with audiovisual feedback disabled. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the measurement of the number of chest compressions performed in 2 minutes, the compression rate, total number of compressions of adequate depth, or the number of compressions exhibiting leaning between the LSR and the Phillips Q-CPR devices. There was a significant difference in measurement of compression depth (P < 0.0001) and duty cycle (P < 0.0001) with the MRx Q-CPR accelerometer demonstrating both lower compression depth and duty cycle compared with LSR. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in most chest compression quality metrics measured between the LSR and the Phillips Q-CPR devices when measured on a manikin. However, there were significant differences in the measurement of duty cycle and also the depth of compressions between the 2 devices with the Phillips Q-CPR device measuring lower depth of compression and duty cycle compared with the LSR device.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: There has been an increased emphasis on the quality of chest compressions as a part of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle of care for recent times. During CPR training, chest compression quality parameters can be measured directly from sensors within a manikin or from external devices placed on the manikin chest that use accelerometer-based technology. The aim of this study was to compare external chest compression data from the manikin-based Laerdal Skill Reporter (LSR) and the accelerometer-based Q-CPR technology, incorporated into the Philips MRx defibrillator, during CPR on a single Resusci Anne Simulator manikin. METHODS: Each paramedic (n = 15) performed 2 sessions of 2 minutes of chest compressions, with a 2-minute rest period in between sessions. Both over-the-head and from-the-side positions were used on a single manikin. The quality of chest compressions were concurrently measured using both LSR and Philips MRx Q-CPR accelerometer with audiovisual feedback disabled. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the measurement of the number of chest compressions performed in 2 minutes, the compression rate, total number of compressions of adequate depth, or the number of compressions exhibiting leaning between the LSR and the Phillips Q-CPR devices. There was a significant difference in measurement of compression depth (P < 0.0001) and duty cycle (P < 0.0001) with the MRx Q-CPR accelerometer demonstrating both lower compression depth and duty cycle compared with LSR. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in most chest compression quality metrics measured between the LSR and the Phillips Q-CPR devices when measured on a manikin. However, there were significant differences in the measurement of duty cycle and also the depth of compressions between the 2 devices with the Phillips Q-CPR device measuring lower depth of compression and duty cycle compared with the LSR device.
Authors: Mario García-Suárez; Carlos Méndez-Martínez; Santiago Martínez-Isasi; Juan Gómez-Salgado; Daniel Fernández-García Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elba Mauriz; Sandra Caloca-Amber; Lucía Córdoba-Murga; Ana María Vázquez-Casares Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 3.390