Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Resuscitation. 2010 Jun;81(6):712-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.12.029. Epub 2010 Mar 12.
Infant CPR guidelines recommend two-finger chest compression with a lone rescuer and two-thumb with two rescuers. Two-thumb provides better chest compression but is perceived to be associated with increased ventilation hands-off time. We hypothesized that lone rescuer two-thumb CPR is associated with increased ventilation cycle time, decreased ventilation quality and fewer chest compressions compared to two-finger CPR in an infant manikin model.
Crossover observational study randomizing 34 healthcare providers to perform 2 min CPR at a compression rate of 100 min(-1) using a 30:2 compression:ventilation ratio comparing two-thumb vs. two-finger techniques.
A Laerdal Baby ALS Trainer manikin was modified to digitally record compression rate, compression depth and compression pressure and ventilation cycle time (two mouth-to-mouth breaths). Manikin chest rise with breaths was video recorded and later reviewed by two blinded CPR instructors for percent effective breaths. Data (mean+/-SD) were analyzed using a two-tailed paired t-test. Significance was defined qualitatively as p< or =0.05.
Mean % effective breaths were 90+/-18.6% in two-thumb and 88.9+/-21.1% in two-finger, p=0.65. Mean time (s) to deliver two mouth-to-mouth breaths was 7.6+/-1.6 in two-thumb and 7.0+/-1.5 in two-finger, p<0.0001. Mean delivered compressions per minute were 87+/-11 in two-thumb and 92+/-12 in two-finger, p=0.0005. Two-thumb resulted in significantly higher compression depth and compression pressure compared to the two-finger technique.
Healthcare providers required 0.6s longer time to deliver two breaths during two-thumb lone rescuer infant CPR, but there was no significant difference in percent effective breaths delivered between the two techniques. Two-thumb CPR had 4 fewer delivered compressions per minute, which may be offset by far more effective compression depth and compression pressure compared to two-finger technique.
婴儿心肺复苏指南建议单人施救者使用双指进行胸外按压,双人施救者使用双拇指进行胸外按压。双拇指可提供更好的胸外按压效果,但被认为与增加通气手离开时间有关。我们假设,在婴儿模型中,与双指 CPR 相比,单人施救者的双拇指 CPR 与通气周期时间延长、通气质量下降以及胸外按压次数减少有关。
交叉观察研究,将 34 名医疗保健提供者随机分配,在压缩率为 100 次/分钟(min(-1))的情况下,使用 30:2 的压缩:通气比进行 2 分钟的 CPR,比较双拇指与双指技术。
对 Laerdal Baby ALS 训练器模型进行了修改,以数字方式记录压缩率、压缩深度和压缩压力以及通气周期时间(两次口对口呼吸)。通过视频记录模型胸部随呼吸的起伏,并由两名盲法心肺复苏指导员审查,以评估有效呼吸的百分比。使用双尾配对 t 检验分析数据(平均值+/-标准差)。有意义的结果定义为 p<或=0.05。
双拇指的平均有效呼吸百分比为 90+/-18.6%,双指为 88.9+/-21.1%,p=0.65。双拇指完成两次口对口呼吸的平均时间(s)为 7.6+/-1.6,双指为 7.0+/-1.5,p<0.0001。双拇指每分钟提供的压缩次数为 87+/-11 次,双指为 92+/-12 次,p=0.0005。与双指技术相比,双拇指技术可产生明显更高的压缩深度和压缩压力。
单人施救者在进行双拇指婴儿心肺复苏时,完成两次呼吸需要多 0.6 秒的时间,但两种技术之间的有效呼吸百分比没有显著差异。双拇指 CPR 每分钟提供的压缩次数减少了 4 次,但与双指技术相比,压缩深度和压力的效果要明显得多,可能会得到弥补。