Handley Anthony J, Handley Juliette A
Resuscitation Council, London, UK.
Resuscitation. 2004 Apr;61(1):55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.11.012.
Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may be difficult to perform in a confined space. This study set out to evaluate alternative techniques of chest compression, which may be easier to perform in such situations. Nineteen airline employees, trained in basic life support (BLS), were recruited to take part in the study. Following refresher training in standard one- and two-person CPR, they were taught two alternative techniques of chest compression: one-person over-the-head (OTH) and two-person straddle (STR). Their performances of chest compression during one-person standard CPR (St-1) and two-person standard CPR (St-2) were then compared with their performances during OTH and STR using a recording manikin. There were no statistically significant differences between the two-person methods of compression (St-2 and STR) for any of the parameters measured. There were no statistically significant differences between the one-person methods of chest compression (St-1 and OTH) for the average compression rate, the number of chest compressions achieved in a minute, or the average hands-off time per cycle. For OTH the average compression depth was significantly less than for St-1 (P = 0.0149) and there were more compressions of incorrect depth (P = 0.0400). The average duty cycle was significantly higher for OTH (P = 0.0045). 30.4% of compressions were incorrectly placed for OTH compared with 7.7% for St-1 (P = 0.0025). It was concluded that the quality of chest compression during two-person straddle CPR compares favorably with chest compression during standard two-person CPR, and may be useful in situations where space is limited. If only one rescuer is available to perform CPR, and limited space makes it impossible to carry out standard CPR, over-the-head CPR is an alternative method. However, in this study, hand placement during chest compression was poor, and additional training may be necessary before it can be considered a safe technique.
在狭小空间内进行标准心肺复苏(CPR)可能会很困难。本研究旨在评估胸外按压的替代技术,这些技术在此类情况下可能更易于实施。招募了19名接受过基础生命支持(BLS)培训的航空公司员工参与该研究。在对标准单人及双人CPR进行复习培训后,他们学习了两种胸外按压替代技术:单人头顶按压(OTH)和双人跨骑按压(STR)。然后使用记录人体模型将他们在单人标准CPR(St - 1)和双人标准CPR(St - 2)期间的胸外按压表现与其在OTH和STR期间的表现进行比较。对于所测量的任何参数,两种双人按压方法(St - 2和STR)之间均无统计学显著差异。对于单人胸外按压方法(St - 1和OTH),在平均按压速率、每分钟完成的胸外按压次数或每个周期的平均手离开时间方面,均无统计学显著差异。对于OTH,平均按压深度显著小于St - 1(P = 0.0149),且深度不正确的按压更多(P = 0.0400)。OTH的平均占空比显著更高(P = 0.0045)。OTH的按压位置错误率为30.4%,而St - 1为7.7%(P = 0.0025)。结论是,双人跨骑CPR期间的胸外按压质量与标准双人CPR期间的胸外按压质量相当,并且在空间有限的情况下可能有用。如果只有一名救援者可进行CPR,且空间有限无法进行标准CPR,头顶CPR是一种替代方法。然而,在本研究中,胸外按压时的手部位置不佳,在将其视为安全技术之前可能需要额外培训。