Şan İshak, Bekgöz Burak, Ergin Mehmet, Usul Eren
Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara City Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Turk J Emerg Med. 2021 Feb 12;21(2):69-74. doi: 10.4103/2452-2473.309135. eCollection 2021 Apr-Jun.
Although studies in the field of emergency medical services (EMS) generally compare survival and hospital discharge rates, there are not many studies measuring the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In this study, we aimed to compare the mechanical chest compression device and paramedics in terms of CPR quality.
This is an experimental trial. This study was performed by the EMS of Ankara city (capital of Turkey). Twenty (ten males and ten females) paramedics participated in the study. We used LUCAS™ 2 as a mechanical chest compression device in the study. Paramedics applied chest compression in twenty rounds, whereas mechanical chest compression device applied chest compression in another set of twenty rounds. The depth, rate, and hands-off time of chest compression were measured by means of the model's recording system.
The median chest compression rate was 120.1 compressions per minute (interquartile range [IQR]: 25%-75% = 117.9-133.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 102.3 compressions per minute for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 102.1-102.7) ( < 0.001). The median chest compression depth was 38.9 mm (IQR: 25%-75% = 32.9-45.5) for the paramedics, whereas it was 52.7 mm for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 51.8-55.0) ( < 0.001). The median hands-off time during CPR was 6.9% (IQR: 25-75 = 5.0%-10.1%) for the paramedics and 9% for the mechanical chest compression device (IQR: 25%-75% = 8.2%-12.5%) ( = 0.09).
During patient transport, according to the chest compression performed by the health-care professionals, it was found that those performed by the mechanical chest compression device were more suitable than that performed by the guides in terms of both speed and duration.
尽管急诊医疗服务（EMS）领域的研究通常比较生存率和出院率，但测量心肺复苏（CPR）质量的研究并不多。在本研究中，我们旨在比较机械胸外按压设备和护理人员在CPR质量方面的差异。
这是一项实验性试验。本研究由安卡拉市（土耳其首都）的EMS进行。二十名（十名男性和十名女性）护理人员参与了研究。在研究中我们使用LUCAS™ 2作为机械胸外按压设备。护理人员进行二十轮胸外按压，而机械胸外按压设备在另一组二十轮中进行胸外按压。通过模型的记录系统测量胸外按压的深度、速率和按压中断时间。
护理人员胸外按压的中位数速率为每分钟120.1次按压（四分位间距[IQR]：25%-75% = 117.9-133.5），而机械胸外按压设备为每分钟102.3次按压（IQR：25%-75% = 102.1-102.7）（<0.001）。护理人员胸外按压的中位数深度为38.9毫米（IQR：25%-75% = 32.9-45.5），而机械胸外按压设备为52.7毫米（IQR：25%-75% = 51.8-55.0）（<0.001）。CPR期间护理人员的中位数按压中断时间为6.9%（IQR：25-75 = 5.0%-10.1%），机械胸外按压设备为9%（IQR：25%-75% = 8.2%-12.5%）（P = 0.09）。
在患者转运过程中，根据医护人员进行的胸外按压情况发现，就速度和持续时间而言，机械胸外按压设备进行的胸外按压比护理人员进行的更合适。
