Chia-Lung Kao1, Jui-Yi Tsou2, Ming-Yuan Hong1, Chih-Jan Chang1, Fong-Chin Su3,4, Chih-Hsien Chi1,4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Fooyin University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 4. Medical Device Innovation Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Abstract
Introduction: Human thoracic stiffness varies and may affect the performance during external chest compression (ECC). The Extra Compression Spring Resusci® QCPR Anne manikin is a high-fidelity training model developed for ECC training that can account for varying levels of thoracic stiffness. The aim of this study was to use this training model to investigate the effects of thoracic stiffness on ECC biomechanics and qualities. Methods: Fifty-two participants performed standard ECC on the manikin with different thoracic springs to simulate varying levels of thoracic stiffness. The MatScan Pressure Measurement system was used to investigate the ECC pressure and force distribution. Results: The hard spring group's performance had a better complete recoil ratio (90.06 ± 24.84% vs. 79.75 ± 32.17% vs. 56.42 ± 40.15%, p < 0.001 at second minute), but was more inferior than the standard and soft spring groups in overall quality, ECC depth (34.17 ± 11.45 mm vs. 41.25 ± 11.42 mm vs. 51.88 ± 7.56, p < 0.001 at second minutes), corrected depth ratio, and corrected rate ratio. The hard spring group had less radial-ulnar peak pressure difference (kgf/cm2) than the other two groups (-0.28 ± 0.38 vs. -0.30 ± 0.43 vs. -0.47 ± 0.34, p = 0.01), demonstrating that more symmetrical pressure was applied in the hard spring group. The soft spring group had better ECC depth, corrected depth ratio, corrected rate ratio, and overall quality, but its performance in complete recoil was inferior, and unbalanced pressure was more liable to cause injury. Hard springs caused operator fatigue easily. Conclusion: The thoracic stiffness greatly affected the performance of ECC. Our findings provided information for more effective ECC practices and training.
Introduction: Human thoracic stiffness varies and may affect the performance during external chest compression (ECC). The Extra Compression Spring Resusci® QCPR Anne manikin is a high-fidelity training model developed for ECC training that can account for varying levels of thoracic stiffness. The aim of this study was to use this training model to investigate the effects of thoracic stiffness on ECC biomechanics and qualities. Methods: Fifty-two participants performed standard ECC on the manikin with different thoracic springs to simulate varying levels of thoracic stiffness. The MatScan Pressure Measurement system was used to investigate the ECC pressure and force distribution. Results: The hard spring group's performance had a better complete recoil ratio (90.06 ± 24.84% vs. 79.75 ± 32.17% vs. 56.42 ± 40.15%, p < 0.001 at second minute), but was more inferior than the standard and soft spring groups in overall quality, ECC depth (34.17 ± 11.45 mm vs. 41.25 ± 11.42 mm vs. 51.88 ± 7.56, p < 0.001 at second minutes), corrected depth ratio, and corrected rate ratio. The hard spring group had less radial-ulnar peak pressure difference (kgf/cm2) than the other two groups (-0.28 ± 0.38 vs. -0.30 ± 0.43 vs. -0.47 ± 0.34, p = 0.01), demonstrating that more symmetrical pressure was applied in the hard spring group. The soft spring group had better ECC depth, corrected depth ratio, corrected rate ratio, and overall quality, but its performance in complete recoil was inferior, and unbalanced pressure was more liable to cause injury. Hard springs caused operator fatigue easily. Conclusion: The thoracic stiffness greatly affected the performance of ECC. Our findings provided information for more effective ECC practices and training.
Authors: Ashish R Panchal; Jason A Bartos; José G Cabañas; Michael W Donnino; Ian R Drennan; Karen G Hirsch; Peter J Kudenchuk; Michael C Kurz; Eric J Lavonas; Peter T Morley; Brian J O'Neil; Mary Ann Peberdy; Jon C Rittenberger; Amber J Rodriguez; Kelly N Sawyer; Katherine M Berg Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Silje Ødegaard; Jo Kramer-Johansen; Allan Bromley; Helge Myklebust; Jon Nysaether; Lars Wik; Petter Andreas Steen Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Gavin D Perkins; Andrew H Travers; Robert A Berg; Maaret Castren; Julie Considine; Raffo Escalante; Raul J Gazmuri; Rudolph W Koster; Swee Han Lim; Kevin J Nation; Theresa M Olasveengen; Tetsuya Sakamoto; Michael R Sayre; Alfredo Sierra; Michael A Smyth; David Stanton; Christian Vaillancourt Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 5.262