van Tulder Raphael, Roth Dominik, Krammel Mario, Laggner Roberta, Schriefl Christoph, Kienbacher Calvin, Lorenzo Hartmann Alexander, Novosad Heinz, Constantin Chwojka Christof, Havel Christoph, Schreiber Wolfgang, Herkner Harald
Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
Department of General Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Management, Viena, Austria.
Emergencias. 2015;27(6):357-363.
We investigated the effect on compression rate and depth of a conventional metronome and a voice metronome in simulated telephone-assisted, protocol-driven bystander Cardiopulmonary resucitation (CPR) compared to standard instruction.
Thirty-six lay volunteers performed 10 minutes of compression-only CPR in a prospective, investigator-blinded, 3-arm study on a manikin. Participants were randomized either to standard instruction ("push down firmly, 5 cm"), a regular metronome pacing 110 beats per minute (bpm), or a voice metronome continuously prompting "deep-deepdeep- deeper" at 110 bpm. The primary outcome was deviation from the ideal chest compression target range (50 mm compression depth x 100 compressions per minute x 10 minutes = 50 m). Secondary outcomes were CPR quality measures (compression and leaning depth, rate, no-flow times) and participants' related physiological response (heart rate, blood pressure and nine hole peg test and borg scales score). We used a linear regression model to calculate effects.
The mean (SD) deviation from the ideal target range (50 m) was -11 (9) m in the standard group, -20 (11) m in the conventional metronome group (adjusted difference [95%, CI], 9.0 [1.2-17.5 m], P=.03), and -18 (9) m in the voice metronome group (adjusted difference, 7.2 [-0.9-15.3] m, P=.08). Secondary outcomes (CPR quality measures and physiological response of participants to CPR performance) showed no significant differences.
Compared to standard instruction, the conventional metronome showed a significant negative effect on the chest compression target range. The voice metronome showed a non-significant negative effect and therefore cannot be recommended for regular use in telephone-assisted CPR.
我们研究了在模拟电话辅助、协议驱动的旁观者心肺复苏(CPR)中,与标准指导相比,传统节拍器和语音节拍器对按压速率和深度的影响。
36名非专业志愿者在一项前瞻性、研究者盲法、三臂研究中,在模拟人上进行了10分钟的单纯按压CPR。参与者被随机分为标准指导组(“用力向下按压,5厘米”)、每分钟110次心跳(bpm)的常规节拍器组,或每分钟110次心跳(bpm)持续提示“深深深-更深”的语音节拍器组。主要结局是偏离理想胸外按压目标范围(50毫米按压深度×每分钟100次按压×10分钟 = 50米)。次要结局是CPR质量指标(按压和倾斜深度、速率、无血流时间)以及参与者的相关生理反应(心率、血压、九孔插针试验和伯格量表评分)。我们使用线性回归模型来计算效应。
标准组偏离理想目标范围(50米)的均值(标准差)为-11(9)米,传统节拍器组为-20(11)米(调整差异[95%,置信区间],9.0[1.2 - 17.5米],P = 0.03),语音节拍器组为-18(9)米(调整差异,7.2[-0.9 - 15.3]米,P = 0.08)。次要结局(CPR质量指标和参与者对CPR操作的生理反应)无显著差异。
与标准指导相比,传统节拍器对胸外按压目标范围有显著负面影响。语音节拍器显示出非显著的负面影响,因此不建议在电话辅助CPR中常规使用。