Does Dual Operator CPR help minimize interruptions in chest compressions?

Comparison of standard and over-the-head method of chest compressions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation - a simulation study

Background

Maintaining highly effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be particularly difficult when artificial ventilation using a bag-valve-mask device, combined with chest compression have to be carried out by one person. The aim of the study is to compare the quality of CPR conducted by one paramedic using chest compression from the patient’s side with compression conducted from the ‘over-the-head’ position.

Methods

The subject of the study were two methods of CPR – ‘standard’ (STD) and ‘over-the-head’ (OTH). The STD method consisted of cycles of 30 chest compressions from the patient’s side, and two attempts at artificial ventilation after moving round to behind the patient’s head. In the OTH method, both compressions and ventilations were conducted from behind the patient’s head.

Results

Both CPR methods were conducted by 38 paramedics working in medical response teams. Statistical analysis was conducted on the data collected, giving the following results: the average time of the interruptions between compression cycles (STD 9.184 s, OTH 7.316 s, p < 0.001); the depth of compression 50–60 mm (STD 50.65%, OTH 60.22%, p < 0.001); the rate of compression 100–120/min. (STD 46.39%, OTH 53.78%, p < 0.001); complete chest wall recoil (STD 84.54%, OTH 91.46%, p < 0.001); correct hand position (STD 99.32%, OTH method 99.66%, p < 0.001). A statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the results to the benefit of the OTH method in the above parameters. The remaining parameters showed no significant differences in comparison to reference values.

Conclusions

The higher quality of CPR in the simulated research using the OTH method by a single person justifies the use of this method in a wider range of emergency interventions.

Comparing three CPR feedback devices and standard BLS in a single rescuer scenario: a randomised simulation study

BACKGROUND

Efficiently performed basic life support (BLS) after cardiac arrest is proven to be effective. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is strenuous and rescuers' performance declines rapidly over time. Audio-visual feedback devices reporting CPR quality may prevent this decline. We aimed to investigate the effect of various CPR feedback devices on CPR quality.

METHODS

In this open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial we compared three CPR feedback devices (PocketCPR, CPRmeter, iPhone app PocketCPR) with standard BLS without feedback in a simulated scenario. 240 trained medical students performed single rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8min. Effective compression (compressions with correct depth, pressure point and sufficient decompression) as well as compression rate, flow time fraction and ventilation parameters were compared between the four groups.

RESULTS

Study participants using the PocketCPR performed 17±19% effective compressions compared to 32±28% with CPRmeter, 25±27% with the iPhone app PocketCPR, and 35±30% applying standard BLS (PocketCPR vs. CPRmeter p=0.007, PocketCPR vs. standard BLS p=0.001, others: ns). PocketCPR and CPRmeter prevented a decline in effective compression over time, but overall performance in the PocketCPR group was considerably inferior to standard BLS. Compression depth and rate were within the range recommended in the guidelines in all groups.

CONCLUSION

While we found differences between the investigated CPR feedback devices, overall BLS quality was suboptimal in all groups. Surprisingly, effective compression was not improved by any CPR feedback device compared to standard BLS. All feedback devices caused substantial delay in starting CPR, which may worsen outcome.

Effective compression ratio--a new measurement of the quality of thorax compression during CPR

PURPOSE

Computer-based feedback systems for assessing the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are widely used these days. Recordings usually involve compression and ventilation dependent variables. Thorax compression depth, sufficient decompression and correct hand position are displayed but interpreted independently of one another. We aimed to generate a parameter, which represents all the combined relevant parameters of compression to provide a rapid assessment of the quality of chest compression-the effective compression ratio (ECR).

METHODS

The following parameters were used to determine the ECR: compression depth, correct hand position, correct decompression and the proportion of time used for chest compressions compared to the total time spent on CPR. Based on the ERC guidelines, we calculated that guideline compliant CPR (30:2) has a minimum ECR of 0.79. To calculate the ECR, we expanded the previously described software solution. In order to demonstrate the usefulness of the new ECR-parameter, we first performed a PubMed search for studies that included correct compression and no-flow time, after which we calculated the new parameter, the ECR.

RESULTS

The PubMed search revealed 9 trials. Calculated ECR values ranged between 0.03 (for basic life support [BLS] study, two helpers, no feedback) and 0.67 (BLS with feedback from the 6th minute).

CONCLUSION

ECR enables rapid, meaningful assessment of CPR and simplifies the comparability of studies as well as the individual performance of trainees. The structure of the software solution allows it to be easily adapted to any manikin, CPR feedback devices and different resuscitation guidelines (e.g. ILCOR, ERC).