Suppr超能文献

与30分钟的培训相比,5分钟仅进行胸外按压的心肺复苏课程对大学生的效果。

Efficacy of a five-minute compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation class compared to thirty-minute instruction among college students.

作者信息

Shende Tanwe C, Battaglia Morgan R, Nuno Tomas, Beskind Dan

机构信息

University of Arizona College of Medicine, 1501 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ, USA.

University of Arizona, Department of Emergency Medicine, 1625 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson, AZ, USA.

出版信息

Resusc Plus. 2020 Jul 11;3:100012. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100012. eCollection 2020 Sep.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine if 5-minute compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCO-CPR) instruction is as effective as 30-minute instruction in improving participant knowledge and comfort with performing CCO-CPR as well as teaching CPR quality and responsiveness to an Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA).

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial of university undergraduates was performed. Participants were randomized to either a 5-minute (experimental) or 30-minute (control) CCO-CPR instruction class. Pre- and post-testing was performed with a written and simulation test. Measurements collected assessed rate and depth of compressions, time to call 911, and time to start chest compressions. Prior to instruction, subjects' baseline measurements of CPR performance were evaluated during a standardized sudden death scenario using a Laerdal Skillreporter mannequin. The written test and scenario were repeated after either the five or 30 ​minute CCO-CPR instruction using the same outcome measures. Statistical tests of association for categorical variables were assessed using the chi-square test and the independent samples -test was utilized for continuous variables. All tests were two-sided and the level of significance was set at α ​= ​0.05.

RESULTS

Among the 59 participants, 28 received 5 ​minutes of instruction and 31 received 30 ​minutes. Fifteen (25.4%) individuals reported prior CPR training. Post intervention, all measurements reached statistically significant improvements in each group but there was no difference between the two groups improvement in depth of compressions (experimental group: 41.8 ​mm, 95% CI 36.6-43.4 vs control group: 46.5 ​mm, 95% CI 40.9-48.3, p ​= ​0.06), compressions per minute (114.3 cpm, 95% CI 105.5-122.0 vs 121.1 cpm, 95% CI 115.1-131.4, p ​= ​0.10), time to starting chest compressions (13.5 vs 12.4 ​sec, p ​= ​0.45), or time to calling 911 (8.34 vs 7.65 ​sec, p ​= ​0.58). Further, there was a statistically significant improvement in participants that said they would probably or definitely perform CCO-CPR in real life after both interventions but no difference between the groups (100% of the experimental group and 93.5% of the control group p ​< ​0.49).

CONCLUSION

Five-minute instruction is not inferior to 30-minute instruction at teaching undergraduate students how to perform quality bystander CCO-CPR.

摘要

目的

确定5分钟仅按压式心肺复苏(CCO-CPR)指导在提高参与者进行CCO-CPR的知识和舒适度以及教授心肺复苏质量和对院外心脏骤停(OHCA)的反应能力方面是否与30分钟指导同样有效。

方法

对大学生进行了一项前瞻性随机对照试验。参与者被随机分配到5分钟(实验组)或30分钟(对照组)的CCO-CPR指导课程。通过书面测试和模拟测试进行前后测试。收集的测量数据评估了按压的速率和深度、拨打911的时间以及开始胸外按压的时间。在指导前,使用Laerdal Skillreporter人体模型在标准化猝死场景中评估受试者心肺复苏表现的基线测量值。在5分钟或30分钟的CCO-CPR指导后,使用相同的结果测量方法重复书面测试和场景。分类变量的关联统计检验使用卡方检验,连续变量使用独立样本t检验。所有测试均为双侧,显著性水平设定为α = 0.05。

结果

在59名参与者中,28人接受了5分钟的指导,31人接受了30分钟的指导。15人(25.4%)报告之前接受过心肺复苏培训。干预后,每组的所有测量值均有统计学上的显著改善,但两组在按压深度(实验组:41.8毫米,95%可信区间36.6 - 43.4,对照组:46.5毫米,95%可信区间40.9 - 48.3,p = 0.06)、每分钟按压次数(114.3次/分钟,95%可信区间105.5 - 122.0,对照组121.1次/分钟,95%可信区间115.1 - 131.4,p = 0.10)、开始胸外按压的时间(13.5秒对12.4秒,p = 0.45)或拨打911的时间(8.34秒对7.65秒,p = 0.58)方面的改善没有差异。此外,在两项干预后,表示他们在现实生活中可能或肯定会进行CCO-CPR的参与者有统计学上的显著改善,但两组之间没有差异(实验组100%,对照组93.5%,p < 0.49)。

结论

在教授本科生如何进行高质量的旁观者CCO-CPR方面,5分钟的指导并不逊于30分钟的指导。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f30d/8244424/bc175059442e/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验