Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Emergency Care and Pedagogy of Health, University of Pécs, Vörösmarty street 4, 7621, Pécs, Hungary.
Faculty of Health Sciences Institute of Emergency Care and Pedagogy of Health, University of Pécs, Jókai Mór street 14, 9700, Szombathely, Hungary.
BMC Emerg Med. 2022 May 8;22(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s12873-022-00636-2.
The resuscitation guidelines provided for the COVID-19 pandemic strongly recommended wearing personal protective equipment. The current study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of chest compressions and the level of fatigue while wearing two different types of mask (surgical vs. cloth).
A randomized, non-inferiority, simulation study was conducted. Participants were randomised into two groups: surgical mask group (n = 108) and cloth mask group (n = 108). The effectiveness (depth and rate) of chest compressions was measured within a 2-min continuous chest-compression-only CPR session. Data were collected through an AMBU CPR Software, a questionnaire, recording vital parameters, and using Borg-scale related to fatigue (before and after the simulation). For further analysis the 2-min session was segmented into 30-s intervals.
Two hundred sixteen first-year health care students participated in our study. No significant difference was measured between the surgical mask and cloth mask groups in chest compression depth (44.49 ± 10.03 mm vs. 45.77 ± 10.77 mm), rate (113.34 ± 17.76/min vs. 111.23 ± 17.51/min), and the level of fatigue (5.72 ± 1.69 vs. 5.56 ± 1.67) (p > 0.05 in every cases). Significant decrease was found in chest compression depth between the first 30-s interval and the second, third, and fourth intervals (p < 0.01).
The effectiveness of chest compressions (depth and rate) was non-inferior when wearing cloth mask compared to wearing surgical mask. However, the effectiveness of chest compressions decreased significantly in both groups during the 2-min chest-compression-only CPR session and did not reach the appropriate chest compression depth range recommended by the ERC.
针对 COVID-19 大流行，复苏指南强烈建议佩戴个人防护设备。本研究旨在评估和比较佩戴两种不同类型口罩（外科口罩和布口罩）时的胸外按压效果和疲劳程度。
进行了一项随机、非劣效性、模拟研究。参与者被随机分为两组：外科口罩组（n=108）和布口罩组（n=108）。在 2 分钟连续的仅胸外按压心肺复苏术（CPR）期间，测量胸外按压的效果（深度和频率）。通过 AMBU CPR 软件、问卷、记录生命体征以及使用与疲劳相关的 Borg 量表（模拟前后）收集数据。为了进一步分析，将 2 分钟的时段分为 30 秒的间隔。
共有 216 名一年级的医护学生参加了我们的研究。外科口罩组和布口罩组的胸外按压深度（44.49±10.03mm 与 45.77±10.77mm）、频率（113.34±17.76/min 与 111.23±17.51/min）和疲劳程度（5.72±1.69 与 5.56±1.67）无显著差异（在所有情况下，p>0.05）。在第一个 30 秒间隔和第二个、第三个和第四个间隔之间，发现胸外按压深度显著下降（p<0.01）。
与佩戴外科口罩相比，佩戴布口罩时，胸外按压的效果（深度和频率）无差异。然而，在 2 分钟的仅胸外按压 CPR 期间，两组的胸外按压效果均显著下降，并未达到 ERC 推荐的适当胸外按压深度范围。
