Tae Han Kim1, Ki Jeong Hong2, Shin Sang Do3, Chu Hyun Kim4, Sung Wook Song5, Kyoung Jun Song6, Young Sun Ro7, Ki Ok Ahn8, Dayea Beatrice Jang9. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: adoong2001@gmail.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: emkjhong@gmail.com. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: shinsangdo@medimail.co.kr. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Inje University Seoul Pak Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: juliannnn@hanmail.net. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jejudo, Korea. Electronic address: sungwook78@gmail.com. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: skciva@gmail.com. 7. Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: Ro.youngsun@gmail.com. 8. Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: arendt75@gmail.com. 9. Laboratory of Emergency Medical Services, Seoul National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea. Electronic address: dy.jang@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during vertical transport in small elevators using standard stretcher for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest can raise concerns with diminishing quality. Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher (RS-CPR) that can be shortened in the length was tested to compare the CPR quality with manual CPR on a standard stretcher (SS-CPR). METHODS: A randomized crossover manikin simulation was designed. Three teams of emergency medical technicians were recruited to perform serial CPR simulations using two different protocols (RS-CPR and SS-CPR) according to a randomization; the first 6 minutes of manual CPR at the scene was identical for both scenarios and two different protocols during vertical transport in a small elevator followed on a basis of cross-over assignment. The LUCAS-2 Chest Compression System (Zolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was used for RS-CPR. CPR quality was measured using a resuscitation manikin (Resusci Anne QCPR, Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in terms of no flow fraction, compression depth, and rate (median and IQR). RESULTS: A total of 42 simulations were analyzed. CPR quality did not differ significantly at the scene. No flow fraction (%) was significantly lower when the stretcher was moving in RS-CPR then SS-CPR (36.0 (33.8-38.7) vs 44.0 (36.8-54.4), P< .01). RS-CPR showed significantly better quality than SS-CPR; 93.2 (50.6-95.6) vs 14.8 (0-20.8) for adequate depth (P< 0.01), and 97.5 (96.6-98.2) vs 68.9(43.4-78.5) for adequate rate (P< .01). CONCLUSION: Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher during vertical transport showed significant improvement in CPR quality in terms of no-flow fraction, compression depth, and rate compared with manual CPR on a standard stretcher.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during vertical transport in small elevators using standard stretcher for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest can raise concerns with diminishing quality. Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher (RS-CPR) that can be shortened in the length was tested to compare the CPR quality with manual CPR on a standard stretcher (SS-CPR). METHODS: A randomized crossover manikin simulation was designed. Three teams of emergency medical technicians were recruited to perform serial CPR simulations using two different protocols (RS-CPR and SS-CPR) according to a randomization; the first 6 minutes of manual CPR at the scene was identical for both scenarios and two different protocols during vertical transport in a small elevator followed on a basis of cross-over assignment. The LUCAS-2 Chest Compression System (Zolife AB, Lund, Sweden) was used for RS-CPR. CPR quality was measured using a resuscitation manikin (Resusci Anne QCPR, Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) in terms of no flow fraction, compression depth, and rate (median and IQR). RESULTS: A total of 42 simulations were analyzed. CPR quality did not differ significantly at the scene. No flow fraction (%) was significantly lower when the stretcher was moving in RS-CPR then SS-CPR (36.0 (33.8-38.7) vs 44.0 (36.8-54.4), P< .01). RS-CPR showed significantly better quality than SS-CPR; 93.2 (50.6-95.6) vs 14.8 (0-20.8) for adequate depth (P< 0.01), and 97.5 (96.6-98.2) vs 68.9(43.4-78.5) for adequate rate (P< .01). CONCLUSION: Mechanical CPR on a reducible stretcher during vertical transport showed significant improvement in CPR quality in terms of no-flow fraction, compression depth, and rate compared with manual CPR on a standard stretcher.
Authors: Dóra Ujvárosy; Veronika Sebestyén; Tamás Pataki; Tamás Ötvös; István Lőrincz; György Paragh; Zoltán Szabó Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Theresa M Olasveengen; Mary E Mancini; Gavin D Perkins; Suzanne Avis; Steven Brooks; Maaret Castrén; Sung Phil Chung; Julie Considine; Keith Couper; Raffo Escalante; Tetsuo Hatanaka; Kevin K C Hung; Peter Kudenchuk; Swee Han Lim; Chika Nishiyama; Giuseppe Ristagno; Federico Semeraro; Christopher M Smith; Michael A Smyth; Christian Vaillancourt; Jerry P Nolan; Mary Fran Hazinski; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Dóra Ujvárosy; Veronika Sebestyén; Tamás Ötvös; Balázs Ratku; István Lorincz; Tibor Szuk; Zoltán Csanádi; Ervin Berényi; Zoltán Szabó Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-06-10