4.5 Article

Comparisons of the vertical one-handed chest compressions according to the rescuer's handedness

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 18-23

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.11.009

关键词

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Hand; Handedness; Pediatrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The handedness of the rescuer does not significantly affect the chest compression depth (CCD) during vertical one-handed chest compression (OHCC), although using the dominant hand generates greater force.
Objective: The vertical one-handed chest compression (OHCC) technique has demonstrated superior compres-sion power and chest compression depth (CCD) compared to conventional OHCC. This study aimed to determine if a rescuer's handedness influences the CCD during the vertical OHCC.Methods: This prospective randomized crossover simulation trial included 59 medical doctors. Each performed a 2 -min single-rescuer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on a pediatric manikin using the vertical OHCC, once with the dominant hand (Test 1) and once with the non-dominant hand (Test 2). CPR parameters were recorded in real-time via sensors in the manikin, and the compression force exerted by each hand was measured using a force plate.Results: The mean and adequate CCD did not differ significantly between Test 1 and 2 (mean depth: 52 mm (in-terquartile range [IQR]: 49-57) in Test 1 vs. 52 mm (IQR: 49-57) in Test 2, P = 0.625; adequate depth: 97% (IQR: 37-100) in Test 1 vs. 92% (IQR: 51-99) in Test 2, P = 0.619). The mean compression force was significantly greater in the dominant hand compared to the non-dominant hand (23.1 kg +/- 4.9 in dominant hand vs. 21.7 kg +/- 4.1 in non-dominant hand, P < 0.001). Other parameters showed no significant differences between Tests 1 and 2.Conclusions: While vertical OHCC with a dominant hand generated greater force, the rescuer's handedness did not affect the CCD during the vertical OHCC.(c) 2023 Elsevier 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

4.5
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