Comparison of chest compressions with and without LUCAS3 mechanical chest compression system during resuscitation performed by novice physicians

Jolanta Majer, P. Zwolinski, Zuzanna Popielarska, Dominika Dunder, O. Aniołek, M. Madziala, A. Madziala, L. Szarpak
{"title":"Comparison of chest compressions with and without LUCAS3 mechanical chest compression system during resuscitation performed by novice physicians","authors":"Jolanta Majer, P. Zwolinski, Zuzanna Popielarska, Dominika Dunder, O. Aniołek, M. Madziala, A. Madziala, L. Szarpak","doi":"10.25121/pnm.2018.31.6.322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. High quality chest compression is one of the basic elements influencing the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and thus the return of spontaneous circulation. In the case of prolonged resuscitation or when the resuscitation is carried out by one person, the quality of chest compressions may decrease. Mechanical chest compression systems may be helpful. Aim. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of manual chest compression and mechanical chest compression system LUCAS3 during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation conducted by novice physicians. Material and methods. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation study. The study involved 36 novice physicians to perform chest compressions with and without the LUCAS3 chest compression system. The participants performed chest compressions continuously. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Polish Society of Disaster Medicine (Approval no.: 32.05.2017.IRB). Results. The depth of chest compressions measured in the second minute of resuscitation with and without LUCAS3 was 52 (IQR: 51-53) and 51 (IQR: 45-53) mm, respectively, with chest compression rates of 110 (IQR: 105.2-115.2) and 127 (IQR: 102-133) compressions per minute. For manual chest compressions, incomplete chest recoil was 15 (IQR: 8-21)% and for LUCAS3 0 (IQR: 0-1)%. From 4, through 6 and 8 minutes of resuscitation, LUCAS3 chest compressions were statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) compared to manual chest compressions for all analyzed chest compression parameters (depth and rate of chest compression; degree of chest recoil and point of chest compression). Conclusions. In a simulation study, novice physicians using the LUCAS3 chest compression system performed higher quality chest compressions than manual chest compressions. With prolonged resuscitation, the quality of manual chest compressions decreases significantly.","PeriodicalId":206045,"journal":{"name":"Postępy Nauk Medycznych","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postępy Nauk Medycznych","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25121/pnm.2018.31.6.322","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction. High quality chest compression is one of the basic elements influencing the effectiveness of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and thus the return of spontaneous circulation. In the case of prolonged resuscitation or when the resuscitation is carried out by one person, the quality of chest compressions may decrease. Mechanical chest compression systems may be helpful. Aim. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of manual chest compression and mechanical chest compression system LUCAS3 during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation conducted by novice physicians. Material and methods. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation study. The study involved 36 novice physicians to perform chest compressions with and without the LUCAS3 chest compression system. The participants performed chest compressions continuously. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Polish Society of Disaster Medicine (Approval no.: 32.05.2017.IRB). Results. The depth of chest compressions measured in the second minute of resuscitation with and without LUCAS3 was 52 (IQR: 51-53) and 51 (IQR: 45-53) mm, respectively, with chest compression rates of 110 (IQR: 105.2-115.2) and 127 (IQR: 102-133) compressions per minute. For manual chest compressions, incomplete chest recoil was 15 (IQR: 8-21)% and for LUCAS3 0 (IQR: 0-1)%. From 4, through 6 and 8 minutes of resuscitation, LUCAS3 chest compressions were statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) compared to manual chest compressions for all analyzed chest compression parameters (depth and rate of chest compression; degree of chest recoil and point of chest compression). Conclusions. In a simulation study, novice physicians using the LUCAS3 chest compression system performed higher quality chest compressions than manual chest compressions. With prolonged resuscitation, the quality of manual chest compressions decreases significantly.
新手医师在复苏过程中使用与不使用LUCAS3机械胸外按压系统的比较
介绍。高质量的胸外按压是影响心肺复苏效果和心肺循环恢复的基本因素之一。在长时间复苏的情况下或当复苏是由一个人进行时,胸外按压的质量可能会下降。机械胸部按压系统可能会有帮助。的目标。本研究的目的是比较新手医师进行模拟心肺复苏时手动胸外按压与机械胸外按压系统LUCAS3的质量。材料和方法。本研究设计为前瞻性、随机、交叉模拟研究。该研究涉及36名新手医生,分别使用和不使用LUCAS3胸外按压系统进行胸外按压。参与者持续进行胸外按压。该研究方案已获得波兰灾难医学学会机构审查委员会的批准(批准号:: 32.05.2017.IRB)。结果。使用LUCAS3和不使用LUCAS3复苏后第2分钟胸按压深度分别为52 (IQR: 51-53)和51 (IQR: 45-53) mm,胸按压率分别为110 (IQR: 105.2-115.2)和127 (IQR: 102-133)次/ min。手工胸外按压的不完全胸后坐力为15 (IQR: 8-21)%, lucas30为0 (IQR: 0-1)%。从复苏第4、6、8分钟开始,LUCAS3胸外按压在所有分析的胸外按压参数(胸外按压深度和频率;胸部后坐程度和胸部受压点)。结论。在一项模拟研究中,新手医生使用LUCAS3胸外按压系统进行的胸外按压质量高于手动胸外按压。随着复苏时间的延长,手动胸外按压的质量明显下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信