Nishiyama Chika, Iwami Taku, Kitamura Tetsuhisa, Ando Masahiko, Sakamoto Tetsuya, Marukawa Seishiro, Kawamura Takashi
Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto; Kyoto University Health Service, Kyoto.
Acad Emerg Med. 2014 Jan;21(1):47-54. doi: 10.1111/acem.12293.
It is unclear how much the length of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training program can be reduced without ruining its effectiveness. The authors aimed to compare CPR skills 6 months and 1 year after training between shortened chest compression-only CPR training and conventional CPR training.
Participants were randomly assigned to either the compression-only CPR group, which underwent a 45-minute training program consisting of chest compressions and automated external defibrillator (AED) use with personal training manikins, or the conventional CPR group, which underwent a 180-minute training program with chest compressions, rescue breathing, and AED use. Participants' resuscitation skills were evaluated 6 months and 1 year after the training. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of appropriate chest compressions 1 year after the training.
A total of 146 persons were enrolled, and 63 (87.5%) in the compression-only CPR group and 56 (75.7%) in the conventional CPR group completed the 1-year evaluation. The compression-only CPR group was superior to the conventional CPR group regarding the proportion of appropriate chest compression (mean ± SD = 59.8% ± 40.0% vs. 46.3% ± 28.6%; p = 0.036) and the number of appropriate chest compressions (mean ± SD = 119.5 ± 80.0 vs. 77.2 ± 47.8; p = 0.001). Time without chest compression in the compression-only CPR group was significantly shorter than that in the conventional CPR group (mean ± SD = 11.8 ± 21.1 seconds vs. 52.9 ± 14.9 seconds; p < 0.001).
The shortened compression-only CPR training program appears to help the general public retain CPR skills better than the conventional CPR training program.
UMIN-CTR UMIN000001675.
目前尚不清楚心肺复苏(CPR)培训项目的时长能缩短多少而不影响其效果。作者旨在比较仅进行胸外按压的缩短版CPR培训与传统CPR培训在培训后6个月和1年时的CPR技能。
参与者被随机分配到仅胸外按压CPR组,该组接受一个45分钟的培训项目,内容包括使用个人训练模拟人进行胸外按压和自动体外除颤器(AED)操作;或传统CPR组,该组接受一个180分钟的培训项目,内容包括胸外按压、人工呼吸和AED操作。在培训后6个月和1年对参与者的复苏技能进行评估。主要结局指标是培训后1年时正确胸外按压的比例。
共纳入146人,仅胸外按压CPR组63人(87.5%)、传统CPR组56人(75.7%)完成了1年评估。在正确胸外按压比例方面(均值±标准差=59.8%±40.0%对46.3%±28.6%;p=0.036)以及正确胸外按压次数方面(均值±标准差=119.5±80.0对77.2±47.8;p=0.001),仅胸外按压CPR组优于传统CPR组。仅胸外按压CPR组胸外按压中断时间显著短于传统CPR组(均值±标准差=11.8±21.1秒对52.9±14.9秒;p<0.001)。
缩短的仅胸外按压CPR培训项目似乎比传统CPR培训项目能更好地帮助公众保持CPR技能。
UMIN-CTR UMIN000001675