Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI.
Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI; VA QUERI Center for Evaluation and Implementation Resources and HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ann Emerg Med. 2023 Jun;81(6):691-698. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.01.012. Epub 2023 Feb 24.
Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation increases the likelihood of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival by more than two-fold. A common barrier to the prompt initiation of compressions is moving victims to the floor, but compression quality on a "floor" versus a "mattress" has not been tested among lay bystanders.
We conducted a prospective, randomized, cross-over trial comparing lay bystander compression quality using a manikin on a bed versus the floor. Participants included adults without professional health care training. We randomized participants to the order of manikin placement, either on a mattress or on the floor. For both, participants were instructed to perform 2 minutes of chest compressions on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation Simon manikin Gaumard (Gaumard Scientific, Miami, FL). The primary outcome was mean compression depth (cm) over 2 minutes. We fit a linear regression model adjusted for scenario order, age, sex, and body mass index with robust standard errors to account for repeated measures and reported mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Our sample of 80 adults was 66% female with a mean age of 50.5 years (SD 18.2). The mean compression depth on the mattress was 2.9 cm (SD 2.3) and 3.5 cm (SD 2.2) on the floor, a mean difference of 0.58 cm (95% CI 0.18, 0.98). Compression depth fell below the 5 to 6 cm depth recommended by the American Heart Association on both surfaces. In the adjusted model, the mean depth was greater when the manikin was on the floor than the mattress (adjusted mean difference 0.62 cm; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.01), and mean depth was less for females than males (adjusted mean difference -1.42 cm, 95% CI -2.59, -0.25). In addition, the difference in compression depth was larger for female participants (mean difference 0.94 cm; 95% CI 0.54, 1.34) than for male participants (mean difference -0.01 cm; 95% CI -0.80, 0.78), and the interaction was statistically significant (P = .04).
The mean compression depth was significantly smaller on the mattress and with female bystanders. Further research is needed to understand the benefit of moving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims to the floor relative to the detrimental effect of delaying chest compressions.
旁观者心肺复苏术将院外心脏骤停的存活率提高了两倍以上。迅速开始按压的一个常见障碍是将受害者移到地板上,但在非专业医疗急救人员中,尚未对地板和床垫上的按压质量进行测试。
我们进行了一项前瞻性、随机、交叉试验,比较了在床和地板上使用模拟人对非专业医疗急救人员的按压质量。参与者包括没有专业医疗保健培训的成年人。我们将参与者随机分配到模拟人放置的顺序,要么放在床垫上,要么放在地板上。对于这两种情况,参与者都被指示在心肺复苏 Simon 模拟人 Gaumard(Gaumard Scientific,迈阿密,FL)上进行 2 分钟的胸部按压。主要结果是 2 分钟内的平均按压深度(cm)。我们拟合了一个线性回归模型,调整了场景顺序、年龄、性别和体重指数,并使用稳健标准误差来考虑重复测量,并报告了平均值差异和 95%置信区间(CI)。
我们的 80 名成年人样本中,66%为女性,平均年龄为 50.5 岁(标准差 18.2)。在床垫上的平均按压深度为 2.9cm(标准差 2.3cm),在地板上的平均按压深度为 3.5cm(标准差 2.2cm),平均差异为 0.58cm(95%CI 0.18, 0.98)。在这两个表面上,按压深度都低于美国心脏协会推荐的 5 到 6cm 深度。在调整后的模型中,当模拟人在地板上时,平均深度大于在床垫上(调整后的平均差异为 0.62cm;95%CI 0.23 至 1.01),女性的平均深度小于男性(调整后的平均差异为-1.42cm;95%CI -2.59, -0.25)。此外,女性参与者的按压深度差异较大(平均差异 0.94cm;95%CI 0.54, 1.34),而男性参与者的按压深度差异较小(平均差异为-0.01cm;95%CI -0.80, 0.78),并且交互作用具有统计学意义(P=0.04)。
在床垫上和女性旁观者中,平均按压深度明显较小。需要进一步研究,以了解将院外心脏骤停患者移到地板上相对于延迟胸部按压的有害影响的益处。