| Literature DB >> 32456130 |
Yukako Nakashima1, Takeji Saitoh1, Hideki Yasui1, Masahide Ueno1, Kensuke Hotta1, Takashi Ogawa1, Yoshiaki Takahashi1, Yuichiro Maekawa2, Atsuto Yoshino1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When a rescuer walks alongside a stretcher and compresses the patient's chest, the rescuer produces low-quality chest compressions. We hypothesized that a stretcher equipped with wing boards allows for better chest compressions than the conventional method.Entities:
Keywords: chest compression; moving stretcher; wing
Year: 2020 PMID: 32456130 PMCID: PMC7291274 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9051584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Chest compressions performed with wings attached to the stretcher (the wing method). The picture surrounded by the dotted line shows the L-shaped brackets screwed to the wings. The black arrows indicate the placement of the L-shaped brackets.
Figure 2Outline of the U-shaped corridor used for the study’s delivery route. Each distance between the starting point and the first corner, the first and the second corner, and the second corner to the turning point was equal to 20 m. The total round-trip circuit was 120 m. The surface of the floor was rigid vinyl.
Figure 3The difference between the average chest compression depths achieved in the walk and wing methods (5.40 ± 0.50 cm vs. 4.85 ± 0.80 cm; p < 0.01). The white bar represents the walk method and the grey bar represents the wing method. The data were analyzed by paired t-test.
Figure 4Data categorizing the percent of chest compression depths (<5 cm, 5–6 cm, or >6 cm) achieved with the walk (white bar) and wing (grey bar) methods. The central boxes represent values from the lower to upper quartile (25th to 75th percentile) within each group. The middle horizontal lines represent the median (50th percentile), and the whiskers represent the 5th and 95th percentiles. The white bars represent the walk method and the grey bars represent the wing method. The p-values above each category show whether there was a significant difference between the methods. The data were analyzed by Wilcoxon-signed rank test.
Changes in vital signs and symptoms before and after the walk and wing methods.
| Parameter | Walk | Wing | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ΔBlood pressure (mmHg) | 22 ± 14 | 14 ± 11 | <0.01 |
| ΔPulse (bpm) | 58 ± 20 | 32 ± 13 | <0.01 |
| ΔRespiratory rate (breaths/min) | 19 ± 4 | 12 ± 6 | <0.01 |
| Modified Borg scale | 6 (5–7) | 4 (2–4) | <0.01 |
Note: The data are presented as a mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). The data in Δblood pressure, Δpulse, and Δrespiratory rate were analyzed by paired t-test; the data in modified Borg scale were analyzed by Wilcoxon-signed rank test.
Correlation coefficients between the rescuer’s size and chest compression quality, considering chest compression depth and percentage of ideal chest compression depth.
| Parameter | Depth | Percentage of Ideal Chest Compression Depth | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walk | Wing | Walk | Wing | |
| Age | −0.08 | −0.044 | 0.031 | 0.010 |
| Height | 0.622 ** | 0.240 | 0.584 ** | 0.283 |
| Body weight | 0.390 ** | 0.099 | 0.379 | 0.270 |
| Body surface area | 0.452 ** | 0.134 | 0.442 ** | 0.273 |
| Arm length | 0.502 ** | 0.265 | 0.520 ** | 0.086 |
| Leg length | 0.464 ** | 0.378 * | 0.340* | 0.110 |
| Sole size | 0.518 ** | 0.270 | 0.590 ** | 0.266 |
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. The data were analyzed by Spearman correlation coefficient test.