Fernández-Méndez María, Barcala-Furelos Roberto, Otero-Agra Martín, Bierens Joost
Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, REMOSS Research Group, Universidade de Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
CLINURSID Research Group, Nursing Department, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Resusc Plus. 2024 May 30;19:100674. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100674. eCollection 2024 Sep.
The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility of a new resuscitation strategy in which breaths are provided during automated external defibrillator (AED) rhythm analysis, and to evaluate its impact on chest compressions (CC) quality and the -analysis time.
A randomized simulation study, comparing two cardiopulmonary resuscitations strategies, has been conducted: the standard strategy (S1) with strategy involving ventilation during AED analysis (S2). Thirty lifeguards have performed both strategies in a cross-over study design during 10 min of CPR.
The number of ventilations per 10 min increases from 47 (S1) to 72 (S2) ( < 0.001). This results in the delivery of an additional 17.1 L of insufflated air in S2 compared to S1 ( < 0.001). There have been no significant changes in frequency and total number of CC. These findings correspond to a reduction of the non-ventilation period from 176 s (S1) to 48 s (S2).
This simulation study suggests that it is feasible to increase the number of ventilations during resuscitation following drowning, without affecting the quantity and quality of chest compressions. The results of this study may serve as a foundation for further investigation into optimal ventilation strategies in this context.
本研究旨在分析一种新的复苏策略的可行性，该策略是在自动体外除颤器（AED）进行心律分析时提供呼吸，并评估其对胸外按压（CC）质量和分析时间的影响。
开展了一项随机模拟研究，比较两种心肺复苏策略：标准策略（S1）和在AED分析期间进行通气的策略（S2）。30名救生员在交叉研究设计中，在10分钟的心肺复苏过程中执行了这两种策略。
每10分钟的通气次数从47次（S1）增加到72次（S2）（<0.001）。这使得与S1相比，S2额外输送了17.1升吹入空气（<0.001）。胸外按压的频率和总数没有显著变化。这些发现对应于非通气期从176秒（S1）减少到48秒（S2）。
这项模拟研究表明，在溺水后的复苏过程中增加通气次数是可行的，且不影响胸外按压的数量和质量。本研究结果可为进一步研究该背景下的最佳通气策略奠定基础。
