Liu Qian, Li Beibei, Zhou Siyi, Gu Lulu, Xue Letian, Lu Ruyue, Xu Li, Sun Peng
Department of Emergency Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430022, China.
Key Laboratory of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation (Huazhong University of Science and Technology), Ministry of Education, Wuhan, Hubei Province 430022, China.
Resusc Plus. 2024 Oct 4;20:100787. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100787. eCollection 2024 Dec.
This study aimed to compare the quality of compressions in supine cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and prone CPR by performing chest compressions on a manikin. Evaluating the effect of prone CPR using different hand and body position on the quality of manual chest compressions and fatigue of participants.
After completing 2 min of chest compression in the supine position (Supine Group), 25 participants randomly performed three sets of 2-minutes chest compressions on a prone position manikin. Stand + hands overlapped Group: participants stood beside the patient bed with their hands overlapped and placed on the posterior segment of the thoracic spine between the scapulae, Straddle + hands separated Group: participants straddled the patient bed with their hands placed above the scapulae on both sides at the mid-chest level, and Straddle + hands overlapped Group: participants straddled the patient bed with their hands overlapping on the posterior segment of the thoracic spine between the scapulae. Subsequently, the quality of chest compressions and participants fatigue were assessed.
Chest compression depth ratio and mean chest compression depth (MCCD) were worse in the three prone CPR groups (Stand + hands overlapped Group: 0.0(0.0,15.6) %, 39.8 ± 1.3 mm; Straddle + hands separated Group: 1.4(0.0,11.7) %, 42.4 ± 1.2 mm; Straddle + hands overlapped Group: 0.0(0.0,9.2) %, 40.9 ± 1.2 mm) than in the Supine group (87.1(68.1,94.0) %; p < 0.001, 52.4 ± 0.4 mm; p < 0.001). In the three prone CPR groups, Straddle + hands separated Group had the greatest MCCD, lowest changes in heart rate (p = 0.018) and lowest changes in RPE scores (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the four groups in terms of mean chest compression rate, accurate chest compression rate ratio, or correct recoil ratio.
This simulation-based study showed that the quality of chest compressions was worse in the prone position than in the supine position. When prone chest compressions were performed using different hand and body position, prone CPR performed by a participant straddling a hospital bed with hands placed above the scapula on either side at the mid-chest level provided higher-quality chest compressions and lower rescuer fatigue.
本研究旨在通过在人体模型上进行胸外按压,比较仰卧位心肺复苏(CPR)和俯卧位CPR时的按压质量。评估采用不同手部和身体姿势的俯卧位CPR对人工胸外按压质量及参与者疲劳程度的影响。
25名参与者在仰卧位完成2分钟胸外按压(仰卧组)后,随机在俯卧位人体模型上进行三组2分钟的胸外按压。站立+双手重叠组:参与者站在病床旁,双手重叠,置于肩胛骨之间的胸椎后段;跨骑+双手分开组:参与者跨骑在病床上,双手置于双侧肩胛骨上方、胸部中部水平;跨骑+双手重叠组:参与者跨骑在病床上,双手在肩胛骨之间的胸椎后段重叠。随后,评估胸外按压质量和参与者的疲劳程度。
三个俯卧位CPR组的胸外按压深度比例和平均胸外按压深度(MCCD)均低于仰卧组(站立+双手重叠组:0.0(0.0,15.6)%,39.8±1.3毫米;跨骑+双手分开组:1.4(0.0,11.7)%,42.4±1.2毫米;跨骑+双手重叠组:0.0(0.0,9.2)%,40.9±1.2毫米)(仰卧组:87.1(68.1,94.0)%;p<0.001,52.4±0.4毫米;p<0.001)。在三个俯卧位CPR组中,跨骑+双手分开组的MCCD最大,心率变化最小(p=0.018),RPE评分变化最小(p<0.001)。四组在平均胸外按压频率、准确胸外按压频率比例或正确回弹比例方面无显著差异。
这项基于模拟的研究表明,俯卧位的胸外按压质量比仰卧位差。当采用不同的手部和身体姿势进行俯卧位胸外按压时,参与者跨骑在病床上、双手置于双侧肩胛骨上方胸部中部水平进行的俯卧位CPR能提供更高质量的胸外按压,且施救者疲劳程度更低。