Koyama Y, Matsuyama T, Kaino T, Hoshino T, Nakao J, Shimojo N, Inoue Y. Adequacy of compression positioning using the feedback device during chest compressions by medical staff in a simulation study.
BMC Emerg Med 2022;
22:76. [PMID:
35524185 PMCID:
PMC9074206 DOI:
10.1186/s12873-022-00640-6]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2022] [Accepted: 04/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
The 2020 American Heart Association guidelines recommend the use of a feedback device during chest compressions (CCs). However, these devices are only placed visually by medical personnel on the lower half of the sternum and do not provide feedback on the adequacy of the pressure-delivery position. In this study, we investigated whether medical staff could deliver CCs at the adequate compression position using a feedback device and identified where the inadequate position was compressed.
Methods
This simulation-based, prospective single-centre study enrolled 44 medical personnel who were assigned to four different groups based on the standing position and the hand in contact with the feedback device as follows: right–left (R–l), right–right (R–r), left–right (L–r), and left–left (L–l), respectively. The sensor position where the maximal average pressure was applied during CCs using the feedback device were ascertained with a flexible capacitive pressure sensor. We determined if this position is the adequate compression position or not. The intergroup differences in the frequency of the adequate compression position, the maximal average pressure, compression rate, depth and recoil were determined.
Results
The frequencies of adequate compression positioning were 55, 50, 58, and 60% in the R–l, R–r, L–r, and L–l groups, respectively, with no significant intergroup difference (p = 0.917). Inadequate position occurred in the front, back, hypothenar and thenar sides. The maximal average pressure did not significantly differ among the groups (p = 0.0781). The average compression rate was 100–110 compressions/min in each group, the average depth was 5–6 cm, and the average recoil was 0.1 cm, with no significant intergroup differences (p = 0.0882, 0.9653, and 0.2757, respectively).
Conclusions
We found that only approximately half of the medical staff could deliver CCs using the feedback device at an adequate compression position and the inadequate position occurred in all sides. Resuscitation courses should be designed to educate trainees about the proper placement during CCs using a feedback device while also evaluating the correct compression position.
Collapse