Jeyapal Kandasamy 1 , Peter S Theobald 1 , Ian K Maconochie 2 , Michael D Jones 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
Show RCT »
Hide RCT «
BACKGROUND: Performing high-quality chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR ) requires achieving of a target depth, release force, rate and duty cycle. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates whether 'real time' feedback could improve infant CPR performance in basic life support-trained (BLS ) and lay rescuers. It also investigates whether delivering rescue breaths hinders performing high-quality chest compressions. Also, this study reports raw data from the two methods used to calculate duty cycle performance. METHODOLOGY: BLS (n=28) and lay (n=38) rescuers were randomly allocated to respective 'feedback' or 'no-feedback' groups, to perform two-thumb chest compressions on an instrumented infant manikin . Chest compression performance was then investigated across three compression algorithms (compression only; five rescue breaths then compression only; five rescue breaths then 15:2 compressions). Two different routes to calculate duty cycle were also investigated, due to conflicting instruction in the literature. RESULTS: No-feedback BLS and lay groups demonstrated <3% compliance against each performance target. The feedback rescuers produced 20-fold and 10-fold increases in BLS and lay cohorts, respectively, achieving all targets concurrently in >60% and >25% of all chest compressions, across all three algorithms. Performing rescue breaths did not impede chest compression quality . CONCLUSIONS: A feedback system has great potential to improve infant CPR performance , especially in cohorts that have an underlying understanding of the technique. The addition of rescue breaths-a potential distraction-did not negatively influence chest compression quality . Duty cycle performance depended on the calculation method, meaning there is an urgent requirement to agree a single measure. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
RCT Entities: Population
Interventions
Outcomes
BACKGROUND: Performing high-quality chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) requires achieving of a target depth, release force, rate and duty cycle. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates whether 'real time' feedback could improve infant CPR performance in basic life support-trained (BLS) and lay rescuers. It also investigates whether delivering rescue breaths hinders performing high-quality chest compressions. Also, this study reports raw data from the two methods used to calculate duty cycle performance. METHODOLOGY: BLS (n=28) and lay (n=38) rescuers were randomly allocated to respective 'feedback' or 'no-feedback' groups, to perform two-thumb chest compressions on an instrumented infant manikin. Chest compression performance was then investigated across three compression algorithms (compression only; five rescue breaths then compression only; five rescue breaths then 15:2 compressions). Two different routes to calculate duty cycle were also investigated, due to conflicting instruction in the literature. RESULTS: No-feedback BLS and lay groups demonstrated <3% compliance against each performance target. The feedback rescuers produced 20-fold and 10-fold increases in BLS and lay cohorts, respectively, achieving all targets concurrently in >60% and >25% of all chest compressions, across all three algorithms. Performing rescue breaths did not impede chest compression quality. CONCLUSIONS: A feedback system has great potential to improve infant CPR performance, especially in cohorts that have an underlying understanding of the technique. The addition of rescue breaths-a potential distraction-did not negatively influence chest compression quality. Duty cycle performance depended on the calculation method, meaning there is an urgent requirement to agree a single measure. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Entities: Disease
Species
Keywords:
resuscitation
Year: 2019
PMID： 31164375 DOI： 10.1136/archdischild-2018-316576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Dis Child ISSN： 0003-9888 Impact factor: 3.791