Whitelaw C C, Slywka B, Goldsmith L J
Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Resuscitation. 2000 Feb;43(3):213-6. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(99)00145-8.
To compare the two-finger versus the two-thumb method of chest compression on an infant model.
an unblinded, prospective, cross-over experimental study.
the metropolitan area of a city with a population of greater than 260,000.
pediatric medical personnel and emergency workers. Anyone unable to complete the study was excluded.
participants performed chest compressions on an infant mannikin for 2 min. PARTICIPANTS were randomized to use the two-finger method or the two-thumb method for the first minute. The investigators recorded the skillguide readings of green (correct), green and orange (too deep), red (wrong placement), or no light (too shallow). Sixty or more correct compressions were judged to be adequate.
Two hundred and nine participants completed the study. PARTICIPANTS included: 66 nurses, 45 EMTs, 38 physicians, 27 paramedics, 14 nurse's assistants/emergency department technicians, 10 firefighters, five respiratory therapists, and four students. Seventy-one percent (149/209) of participants failed to give adequate compressions by either method. Only 40 participants performed adequate compressions using the two-thumb method (95% confidence interval. 14-25%). Thirty-eight participants gave adequate compressions using the two-finger method (95% confidence interval, 13-24%). No statistically significant difference existed between the two groups (P = 0.877; the McNemar test). A statistically significant difference was found in the number of shallow compressions for each method. Forty participants (19.1%) had more than 40 compressions that were too shallow versus 15 (7.2%) using the two-thumb method (P < 0.005).
Medical personnel often fail to give adequate compressions. The two-thumb method was as adequate as the two-finger method. Overall, more compressions were measured as shallow with the two-finger method.
在婴儿模型上比较双指与双拇指胸外按压方法。
一项非盲、前瞻性、交叉实验研究。
人口超过26万的城市大都市区。
儿科医务人员和急救人员。任何无法完成研究的人被排除。
参与者在婴儿人体模型上进行2分钟胸外按压。参与者被随机分配在第一分钟使用双指方法或双拇指方法。研究人员记录绿色(正确)、绿色和橙色(过深)、红色(位置错误)或无灯光(过浅)的技能指南读数。60次或更多正确按压被判定为足够。
209名参与者完成了研究。参与者包括:66名护士、45名急救医疗技术员、38名医生、27名护理人员、14名护士助理/急诊科技术员、10名消防员、5名呼吸治疗师和4名学生。71%(149/209)的参与者两种方法都未能进行足够的按压。仅40名参与者使用双拇指方法进行了足够的按压(95%置信区间,14 - 25%)。38名参与者使用双指方法进行了足够的按压(95%置信区间,13 - 24%)。两组之间无统计学显著差异(P = 0.877;McNemar检验)。每种方法的浅按压次数存在统计学显著差异。40名参与者(19.1%)有超过40次按压过浅,而使用双拇指方法的为15名(7.2%)(P < 0.005)。
医务人员经常未能进行足够的按压。双拇指方法与双指方法一样有效。总体而言,双指方法测得的浅按压更多。