This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objectives
We aimed to evaluate and compare the qualities of chest compressions performed manually by healthcare professionals and by a mechanical chest compression device on a training model during an ambulance transfer. Design
This is an experimental trial.
Setting
This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara City (Capital of Turkey). 20 (10 male and 10 female) paramedic participated the study. We used LUCAS 2 as mechanical chest compression device in the study. A total of 40 rounds were driven on the track; in that moving ambulance, the model was applied chest compression in 20 rounds by paramedics, while in 20 rounds were applied by mechanical chest compression device. The depth, rate and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system.
Results
The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (IQR 25–75%=117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR 25–75%=102.1–102.7) (p<0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 millimeters (IQR 25–75%=32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 millimeters for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR 25–75%=51.8–55.0) (p<0.001). The median hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 6.9% (IQR 25–75=5.0–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% (IQR 25–75%=8.2–12.5%) (p=0.09).
Conclusion
Chest compressions performed by the mechanical chest compression device were found to be within the range recommended by the guidelines in terms of both speed and duration.
Keywords
Prehospital, Resuscitation, Mechanical chest compression devices, CPR quality
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 29 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Critical Care & Emergency Medicine
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Original research
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 29 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Critical Care & Emergency Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Objectives
We aimed to evaluate and compare the qualities of chest compressions performed manually by healthcare professionals and by a mechanical chest compression device on a training model during an ambulance transfer. Design
This is an experimental trial.
Setting
This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara City (Capital of Turkey). 20 (10 male and 10 female) paramedic participated the study. We used LUCAS 2 as mechanical chest compression device in the study. A total of 40 rounds were driven on the track; in that moving ambulance, the model was applied chest compression in 20 rounds by paramedics, while in 20 rounds were applied by mechanical chest compression device. The depth, rate and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system.
Results
The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (IQR 25–75%=117.9–133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR 25–75%=102.1–102.7) (p<0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 millimeters (IQR 25–75%=32.9–45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 millimeters for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR 25–75%=51.8–55.0) (p<0.001). The median hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 6.9% (IQR 25–75=5.0–10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% (IQR 25–75%=8.2–12.5%) (p=0.09).
Conclusion
Chest compressions performed by the mechanical chest compression device were found to be within the range recommended by the guidelines in terms of both speed and duration.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...