Rubén Navarro-Patón1, Miguel Freire-Tellado2, Noel Fernández-González3, Silvia Basanta-Camiño4, Javier Mateos-Lorenzo5, Joaquín Lago-Ballesteros6. 1. University of Santiago de Compostela, Faculty of Teacher Training, Avda. Ramón Ferreiro sn, C.P. 27001, Lugo, Spain. Electronic address: ruben.navarro.paton@usc.es. 2. Emergency Medical Service, Base 061 Lugo, Centro de Salud de Fingoy, calle, Armórica sn, 27002, Lugo, Spain. Electronic address: miguel.freire.tellado@sergas.es. 3. University of Santiago de Compostela, Faculty of Teacher Training, Avda. Ramón Ferreiro sn, C.P. 27001, Lugo, Spain. Electronic address: noel.fernandez@rai.usc.es. 4. University of Santiago de Compostela, Faculty of Teacher Training, Avda. Ramón Ferreiro sn, C.P. 27001, Lugo, Spain. Electronic address: s.basanta@usc.es. 5. Emergency Medical Services, Division of Nursing, Cantabria, Spain. Electronic address: javier.mateos@scsalud.es. 6. University of Santiago de Compostela, Faculty of Teacher Training, Avda. Ramón Ferreiro sn, C.P. 27001, Lugo, Spain. Electronic address: joaquin.lago@usc.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current resuscitation guidelines endorse placing the unconscious and normally breathing victims in the recovery position (RP), but this technique might hinder breathing evaluation. AIM: To compare breathing evaluation and cardiac arrest detection: placing the victim in RP and checking breathing regularly, placing the victim in RP while re-evaluating breathing every minute, and placing the victim on his back, maintaining an open airway with the head-tilt-chin-lift technique and continuously checking breathing. METHODS:Schoolchildren aged 10-12 with no previous cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, from three different primary schools were randomly allocated into groups to receive a CPR course involving one of the three strategies. Then a human simulation took place. RESULT: 192 schoolchildren (64 per group) were randomly selected and received one of the courses. 182 participants who correctly assessed the victim were compared: 16 (26.2%) out of the 59 participants usingRP and checking breathing regularly detected cardiac arrest before the end of the simulation, compared to 41 (67.20%) out of 61 using RP re-evaluating breathing every minute, and 56 (90.3%) out of 62 using head-tilt-chin-lift. Statistically significant differences were found between the RP groups (p < 0.001; OR = 5.766) as well as between the Head-tilt-chin-lift and both RP groups (p < 0.001; OR = 21.094), (p = 0.002; OR = 4.553). CONCLUSION: The strategy involving head-tilt-chin-lift significantly increased the likelihood of detecting cardiac arrest. Re-evaluating every minute when the RP was used significantly increased the likelihood of detecting cardiac arrest.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current resuscitation guidelines endorse placing the unconscious and normally breathing victims in the recovery position (RP), but this technique might hinder breathing evaluation. AIM: To compare breathing evaluation and cardiac arrest detection: placing the victim in RP and checking breathing regularly, placing the victim in RP while re-evaluating breathing every minute, and placing the victim on his back, maintaining an open airway with the head-tilt-chin-lift technique and continuously checking breathing. METHODS: Schoolchildren aged 10-12 with no previous cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training, from three different primary schools were randomly allocated into groups to receive a CPR course involving one of the three strategies. Then a human simulation took place. RESULT: 192 schoolchildren (64 per group) were randomly selected and received one of the courses. 182 participants who correctly assessed the victim were compared: 16 (26.2%) out of the 59 participants using RP and checking breathing regularly detected cardiac arrest before the end of the simulation, compared to 41 (67.20%) out of 61 using RP re-evaluating breathing every minute, and 56 (90.3%) out of 62 using head-tilt-chin-lift. Statistically significant differences were found between the RP groups (p < 0.001; OR = 5.766) as well as between the Head-tilt-chin-lift and both RP groups (p < 0.001; OR = 21.094), (p = 0.002; OR = 4.553). CONCLUSION: The strategy involving head-tilt-chin-lift significantly increased the likelihood of detecting cardiac arrest. Re-evaluating every minute when the RP was used significantly increased the likelihood of detecting cardiac arrest.
Authors: Matthew J Douma; Anthony J Handley; Ella MacKenzie; James Raitt; Aaron Orkin; David Berry; Jason Bendall; Domhnall O'Dochartaigh; Christopher Picard; Jestin N Carlson; Therese Djärv; David A Zideman; Eunice M Singletary Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2022-04-29