Smereka Jacek, Bielski Karol, Ladny Jerzy R, Ruetzler Kurt, Szarpak Lukasz
Department of Emergency Medical Service, Wroclaw Medical University MEDITRANS The Provincial Emergency Medical Service and Sanitary Transport, Warsaw Department of Emergency Medicine and Disaster, Medical University Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland Department of General Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Apr;96(14):e5915. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005915.
Providing adequate chest compression is essential during infant cardio-pulmonary-resuscitation (CPR) but was reported to be performed poor. The "new 2-thumb technique" (nTTT), which consists in using 2 thumbs directed at the angle of 90° to the chest while closing the fingers of both hands in a fist, was recently introduced. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare 3 chest compression techniques, namely, the 2-finger-technique (TFT), the 2-thumb-technique (TTHT), and the nTTT in an randomized infant-CPR manikin setting.
A total of 73 paramedics with at least 1 year of clinical experience performed 3 CPR settings with a chest compression:ventilation ratio of 15:2, according to current guidelines. Chest compression was performed with 1 out of the 3 chest compression techniques in a randomized sequence. Chest compression rate and depth, chest decompression, and adequate ventilation after chest compression served as outcome parameters.
The chest compression depth was 29 (IQR, 28-29) mm in the TFT group, 42 (40-43) mm in the TTHT group, and 40 (39-40) mm in the nTTT group (TFT vs TTHT, P < 0.001; TFT vs nTTT, P < 0.001; TTHT vs nTTT, P < 0.01). The median compression rate with TFT, TTHT, and nTTT varied and amounted to 136 (IQR, 133-144) min versus 117 (115-121) min versus 111 (109-113) min. There was a statistically significant difference in the compression rate between TFT and TTHT (P < 0.001), TFT and nTTT (P < 0.001), as well as TTHT and nTTT (P < 0.001). Incorrect decompressions after CC were significantly increased in the TTHT group compared with the TFT (P < 0.001) and the nTTT (P < 0.001) group.
The nTTT provides adequate chest compression depth and rate and was associated with adequate chest decompression and possibility to adequately ventilate the infant manikin. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these initial findings.
在婴儿心肺复苏(CPR)过程中进行充分的胸外按压至关重要,但据报道实际操作情况不佳。最近引入了“新双拇指技术”(nTTT),即双手握拳,双拇指与胸部呈90°角进行按压。因此,本研究旨在比较三种胸外按压技术,即双指法(TFT)、传统双拇指法(TTHT)和nTTT,在随机设置的婴儿CPR模拟人模型上的效果。
共有73名具有至少1年临床经验的护理人员,按照当前指南,以胸外按压与通气比例为15:2进行了三种CPR设置操作。采用随机顺序,分别使用三种胸外按压技术中的一种进行胸外按压。胸外按压速率和深度、胸廓回弹以及胸外按压后的充分通气作为观察指标。
TFT组胸外按压深度为29(四分位间距,28 - 29)mm,TTHT组为42(40 - 43)mm,nTTT组为40(39 - 40)mm(TFT与TTHT比较,P<0.001;TFT与nTTT比较,P<0.001;TTHT与nTTT比较,P<0.01)。TFT、TTHT和nTTT的按压速率中位数各不相同,分别为136(四分位间距,133 - 144)次/分钟、117(115 - 121)次/分钟和111(109 - 113)次/分钟。TFT与TTHT之间(P<0.001)、TFT与nTTT之间(P<0.001)以及TTHT与nTTT之间(P<0.001)的按压速率差异具有统计学意义。与TFT组(P<0.001)和nTTT组(P<0.001)相比,TTHT组胸外按压后不正确的胸廓回弹明显增加。
nTTT能提供足够的胸外按压深度和速率,并与充分的胸廓回弹以及使婴儿模拟人得到充分通气的可能性相关。需要进一步的临床研究来证实这些初步发现。