CLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
SICRUS Research Group, Institute of Health Research of Santiago de Compostela (IDIS), 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 9;20(4):3026. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043026.
Since a great number of infant cardiopulmonary arrests occur outside of the hospital, it is crucial to train laypersons in cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques, especially those professionals that will work with infants and children. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efectiveness of ventilations performed by professional training students. The secondary objective was to analyze the preference between different ventilation and chest-compression methods. The sample consisted of 32 professional training students, 15 preschool students, and 17 physical education students. The activity was conducted separately for each group, and we provided a 10 min theoretical training about infant basic life support followed by a 45 min practical training using a Laerdal Little Anne QCPR CPR manikin. A practical test in pairs was organized to record the ventilation as performed by the participants, establishing the difference between the efficacious and the non-efficacious ones. Furthermore, we handed out a survey before and after training to evaluate their knowledge. More than 90% of the students completely agreed with the importance of learning cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques for their professional future. More than half of the sample considered that they perform the rescue breathings with the mouth-to-mouth method better. We observed that through mouth-to-mouth-nose ventilations, the number of effective ventilations was significantly higher than the effective ventilations provided by a self-inflating bag and mask (EffectiveMtoMN 6.42 ± 4.27 vs. EffectiveMask 4.75 ± 3.63 ( = 0.007)), which was the preferred method. In terms of the compression method, hands encircling the chest was preferred by more than 85% of students. Mouth-to-mouth nose ventilation is more efficient than bag-face-mask ventilation in CPR as performed by professional training and physical activity students. This fact must be considered to provide higher-quality training sessions to professional training students.
由于大量婴儿心肺骤停发生在医院之外，因此培训非专业人员进行心肺复苏术至关重要，尤其是那些将与婴儿和儿童一起工作的专业人员。本研究的主要目的是评估专业培训学生进行通气的效果。次要目的是分析不同通气和胸外按压方法的偏好。样本由 32 名专业培训学生、15 名学前学生和 17 名体育学生组成。每个组都分别进行了活动，我们提供了 10 分钟的婴儿基本生命支持理论培训，然后使用 Laerdal Little Anne QCPR CPR 模拟人进行了 45 分钟的实践培训。我们组织了一项双人实践测试来记录参与者的通气情况，确定有效通气和无效通气之间的差异。此外，我们在培训前后发放了一份调查问卷，以评估他们的知识。超过 90%的学生完全同意学习心肺复苏技术对他们未来的职业发展的重要性。超过一半的样本认为他们通过口对口人工呼吸进行的抢救呼吸效果更好。我们观察到，通过口对口鼻通气，有效通气次数明显高于使用自动充气袋和面罩进行的有效通气次数（有效 MtoMN6.42±4.27 与有效 Mask4.75±3.63（=0.007）），这是首选方法。就按压方法而言，超过 85%的学生更喜欢双手环抱胸部的方法。口对口鼻通气在专业培训和体育活动学生进行的 CPR 中比袋面罩通气更有效。这一事实必须加以考虑，以便为专业培训学生提供更高质量的培训课程。
