4.4 Article

Optimal chest compression rate in cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective, randomized crossover study using a manikin model

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 253-257

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000249

关键词

basic life support; quality; rate of chest compression; resuscitation

资金

  1. Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives When performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the 2010 American Heart Association guidelines recommend a chest compression rate of at least 100 min(-1), whereas the 2010 European Resuscitation Council guidelines recommend a rate of between 100 and 120 min(-1). The aim of this study was to examine the rate of chest compression that fulfilled various quality indicators, thereby determining the optimal rate of compression. Methods Thirty-two trainee emergency medical technicians and six paramedics were enrolled in this study. All participants had been trained in basic life support. Each participant performed 2 min of continuous compressions on a skill reporter manikin, while listening to a metronome sound at rates of 100, 120, 140, and 160 beats/min, in a random order. Mean compression depth, incomplete chest recoil, and the proportion of correctly performed chest compressions during the 2 min were measured and recorded. Results The rate of incomplete chest recoil was lower at compression rates of 100 and 120 min(-1) compared with that at 160 min(-1) (P=0.001). The numbers of compressions that fulfilled the criteria for high-quality CPR at a rate of 120 min(-1) were significantly higher than those at 100 min(-1) (P=0.016). Conclusion The number of high-quality CPR compressions was the highest at a compression rate of 120 min(-1), and increased incomplete recoil occurred with increasing compression rate. However, further studies are needed to confirm the results. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据