标准手臂和足部胸部按压的机械差异:一项随机交叉研究

IF 2.4 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Damjan Slabe, Eva Dolenc Šparovec, Miha Fošnarič
{"title":"标准手臂和足部胸部按压的机械差异:一项随机交叉研究","authors":"Damjan Slabe,&nbsp;Eva Dolenc Šparovec,&nbsp;Miha Fošnarič","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The standard method of resuscitation chest compression (CC) is the two-handed chest compression (HCC), whereas the quality of foot chest compressions (FCCs) has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aimed to compare the mechanical characteristics of foot and two-handed chest compressions to identify differences in quality and potential safety concerns between HCCs and FCCs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a randomised crossover manikin study. The outcomes measured included the time course of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted by the manikin on the force plate during resuscitation and components of high-quality CCs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>While the maximal force exerted during FCCs was approximately 5 % lower than during HCCs, the angle of this maximal force from the vertical was nearly twice as large in FCCs (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001). Participants performing FCCs achieved a lower mean CC depth (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), consistent with the smaller maximal force. The rate of FCCs was slower than that of HCCs (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and the total number of compressions performed differed significantly between the two methods (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The method of compression influences both the magnitude and angle of the force applied. FCCs were associated with significantly lower quality metrics. Nevertheless, on average, participants in both groups achieved CC parameters that were within or close to the recommended guideline ranges.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"25 ","pages":"Article 101050"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical differences between standard arm and foot chest compressions: a randomised crossover study\",\"authors\":\"Damjan Slabe,&nbsp;Eva Dolenc Šparovec,&nbsp;Miha Fošnarič\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The standard method of resuscitation chest compression (CC) is the two-handed chest compression (HCC), whereas the quality of foot chest compressions (FCCs) has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aimed to compare the mechanical characteristics of foot and two-handed chest compressions to identify differences in quality and potential safety concerns between HCCs and FCCs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a randomised crossover manikin study. The outcomes measured included the time course of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted by the manikin on the force plate during resuscitation and components of high-quality CCs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>While the maximal force exerted during FCCs was approximately 5 % lower than during HCCs, the angle of this maximal force from the vertical was nearly twice as large in FCCs (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.0001). Participants performing FCCs achieved a lower mean CC depth (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), consistent with the smaller maximal force. The rate of FCCs was slower than that of HCCs (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and the total number of compressions performed differed significantly between the two methods (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The method of compression influences both the magnitude and angle of the force applied. FCCs were associated with significantly lower quality metrics. Nevertheless, on average, participants in both groups achieved CC parameters that were within or close to the recommended guideline ranges.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101050\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425001870\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520425001870","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

复苏胸按压(CC)的标准方法是双手胸按压(HCC),而足部胸按压(FCCs)的质量尚未得到充分的研究。本研究旨在比较足部胸外按压和双手胸外按压的机械特性,以确定HCCs和FCCs在质量和潜在安全方面的差异。方法采用随机交叉人体模型研究。测量的结果包括复苏期间人体对力板施加的力的大小和方向的时间过程以及高质量cc的组成。结果FCCs过程中所施加的最大力比HCCs过程中所施加的最大力低约5%,但该最大力的垂直角度在FCCs过程中几乎是前者的两倍(p <;0.0001)。执行FCCs的参与者获得较低的平均CC深度(p <;0.001),与较小的最大力一致。FCCs的速率比HCCs慢(p <;0.001),两种方法的压缩总次数差异显著(p <;0.001)。结论加压方式对施加力的大小和角度均有影响。FCCs与显著较低的质量指标相关。然而,平均而言,两组参与者的CC参数都在或接近推荐的指南范围内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mechanical differences between standard arm and foot chest compressions: a randomised crossover study

Introduction

The standard method of resuscitation chest compression (CC) is the two-handed chest compression (HCC), whereas the quality of foot chest compressions (FCCs) has not yet been sufficiently investigated. This study aimed to compare the mechanical characteristics of foot and two-handed chest compressions to identify differences in quality and potential safety concerns between HCCs and FCCs.

Methods

This was a randomised crossover manikin study. The outcomes measured included the time course of the magnitude and direction of the force exerted by the manikin on the force plate during resuscitation and components of high-quality CCs.

Results

While the maximal force exerted during FCCs was approximately 5 % lower than during HCCs, the angle of this maximal force from the vertical was nearly twice as large in FCCs (p < 0.0001). Participants performing FCCs achieved a lower mean CC depth (p < 0.001), consistent with the smaller maximal force. The rate of FCCs was slower than that of HCCs (p < 0.001), and the total number of compressions performed differed significantly between the two methods (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The method of compression influences both the magnitude and angle of the force applied. FCCs were associated with significantly lower quality metrics. Nevertheless, on average, participants in both groups achieved CC parameters that were within or close to the recommended guideline ranges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信