Department of Emergency Medicine, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Goyang, Republic of Korea.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Ajou University, School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 8;17(8):e0271636. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271636. eCollection 2022.
The two-thumb encircling technique (2TT) is superior to the two-finger technique (2FT) in infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but there are difficulties in providing ventilation as soon as possible. We modified the 2TT to the cross-thumb technique (CTT) to maintain good CPR performance at the same position as 2FT. We aimed to compare the quality of chest compression and brief hands-off times in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT by a single rescuer using an infant CPR manikin model.
This study was designed as a prospective randomized controlled simulation-based study. We used the Resusci® Baby QCPR (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) as a simulated 3-month-old infant. Ventilation was performed by the mouth-to-mouth technique using a chest compression-to-ventilation ratio of 30:2 as a single rescuer. Data on CPR quality, such as locations, rates, depth and release of chest compressions, hands-off times, and proper ventilation, were recorded using the Resusci® Baby QCPR and SkillReporter. Also, the chest compression fraction (CCF) was automatically calculated.
The depth of chest compression in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 40.0 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 39.0, 41.0), 42.0 mm (IQR 41.0, 43.0), and 42.0 mm (IQR 41.0, 43.0), respectively. The depth of chest compression in 2FT was shallower than that in the other two techniques (P<0.05). CCF in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 73.9% (IQR 72.2, 75.6), 71.2% (IQR 67.2, 72.2) and 71.3% (IQR 67.7, 74.1), respectively. CCF was higher in 2FT than in the other two techniques (P<0.05). Correct location in 2FT, 2TT, and CTT were 99.0% (IQR 86.0, 100.0), 100.0% (IQR 97.0, 100.0) and 100.0% (IQR 99.0, 100.0), respectively. Correct location in CTT and 2TT was higher than that in 2FT. Performing CTT, the subjective pain and fatigue score were lower than other two technique.
A new chest compression technique, CTT was better in chest compression depth compared with 2FT and may be helpful in maintaining correct chest compression location with less pain and fatigue in infant CPR.
在婴儿心肺复苏(CPR)中,两拇指环绕技术(2TT)优于两指法(2FT),但尽快提供通气存在困难。我们将 2TT 改良为交叉拇指技术(CTT),以便在与 2FT 相同的位置保持良好的 CPR 性能。我们旨在通过使用婴儿 CPR 模型比较 2FT、2TT 和 CTT 中单个救援人员的胸外按压质量和短暂的手离时间。
本研究设计为前瞻性随机对照模拟研究。我们使用 Resusci®Baby QCPR(Laerdal Medical,Stavanger,挪威)作为模拟 3 个月大的婴儿。通气采用胸外按压与通气比为 30:2 的口对口技术进行。使用 Resusci®Baby QCPR 和 SkillReporter 记录 CPR 质量数据,如按压位置、频率、深度和释放、手离时间和正确通气等。还自动计算胸外按压分数(CCF)。
2FT、2TT 和 CTT 的胸外按压深度分别为 40.0mm(四分位距[IQR]39.0,41.0)、42.0mm(IQR 41.0,43.0)和 42.0mm(IQR 41.0,43.0)。2FT 的按压深度比其他两种技术浅(P<0.05)。2FT、2TT 和 CTT 的 CCF 分别为 73.9%(IQR 72.2,75.6)、71.2%(IQR 67.2,72.2)和 71.3%(IQR 67.7,74.1)。2FT 的 CCF 高于其他两种技术(P<0.05)。2FT、2TT 和 CTT 的正确位置分别为 99.0%(IQR 86.0,100.0)、100.0%(IQR 97.0,100.0)和 100.0%(IQR 99.0,100.0)。CTT 和 2TT 的正确位置均高于 2FT。与其他两种技术相比,执行 CTT 时主观疼痛和疲劳评分较低。
一种新的胸外按压技术 CTT 与 2FT 相比,在胸外按压深度方面表现更好,并且在婴儿 CPR 中可能有助于保持正确的胸外按压位置,减少疼痛和疲劳。