Comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation that applied synchronous 30 compressions–2 ventilations with that applied asynchronous 110/min compression–10/min ventilation: A mannequin study

Background: CPR model of a resuscitation to be ventilated with a bag valve mask constitutes a discussion when evaluated with the current guidance. Objective: This study aims to compare the synchronous (30–2) ventilation–compression method with asynchronous 110/min compression–10/min ventilation in cardiac arrests where an advanced airway management is not applied and where ventilation is provided by a bag valve mask on a mannequin. Methods: This simulation trial was performed using two clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios: an asynchronous scenario with 10 ventilations per minute asynchronously when compression is applied as 110 compression per minute and a synchronous scenario in which 30 compressions:2 ventilations were performed synchronously. A total of 100 people in 50 groups applied these two scenarios on mannequin. Ventilation and compression data of both scenarios were recorded. Results: Evaluating the compression criteria in both the scenarios performed by 50 groups in total, in terms of all criteria except compression fraction, there was no statistically difference between the two scenarios (p > 0.05). Compression fraction values in the asynchronous scenario were found to be statistically significantly higher than the synchronous scenario (96.02 ± 2.35, 81.34 ± 4.42, p < 0.001). Evaluating the ventilation criteria in both the scenarios performed by 50 groups in total; there was a statistically significant difference in all criteria. Mean ventilation rate of the asynchronous scenario was statistically higher than the synchronous scenario (7.22 ± 2.42, 5.08 ± 0.75, p < 0.001). Mean ventilation volume of the synchronous scenario was statistically higher than the asynchronous scenario (353.24 ± 45.46, 527.40 ± 96.60, p < 0.001). Ventilation ratio in sufficient volume of the synchronous scenario was statistically higher than the asynchronous scenario (36.84 ± 14.47, 75.00 ± 21.24, p < 0.001). Ventilation ratio below the minimum volume limit of the asynchronous scenario was statistically higher than the synchronous scenario (62.48 ± 14.72, 17.86 ± 19.50, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In our study, we concluded that the cardiopulmonary resuscitation applied by the synchronous method reached better ventilation volumes. Evaluating together with any interruption in compression, comprehensive studies are needed to reveal which patients would benefit from this result.